Sunday, 17 June 2018

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on Ghosts in the Bible?

The Superficiality of 'Left' & 'Right'

Terms give names to the concepts we have in our minds. And concepts, in turn, are, or ought to be, our internal mental comprehension of what actually exists in the world. When our concepts signify what truly exists, then our thinking can deal with things as they really are, surely the first requisite for intelligent and effective action. But when our concepts are not adequate comprehensions of reality, then our thinking and acting are necessarily based, at least in part, on illusions. When this happens the terms we employ to express what is in our minds will obviously also be confused and will generally make whatever we are discussing more, rather than less, obscure. Moreover, since most of us do not habitually ground our thinking in first principles, a confused set of terms is likely to hold the field unchallenged. And if the matter is an important one, the results of all this ambiguity are likely to be serious.
For example, when we use the term “unborn baby,” we are giving expression to our mental grasp of the reality outside our minds, namely, that the fetus is truly a baby who simply happens to not yet be born. If, on the other hand, such terms as “product of conception” or “protoplasmic parasite” express what is in our minds, that would show that in this case we do not have an adequate grasp of reality.
There is another major area where the above confusion exists. This is in our political terminology, which hinders clear thought, and makes coherent action difficult. The terms I refer to are those that classify all political and socio-economic positions along a unilinear spectrum from Right to Left, terms such as reactionary, conservative, moderate, liberal, and radical. These terms and the set of concepts that underlie them are not only illusory, but dangerous; they contribute, most notably, to the dichotomy that exists between those working for pro-life and related causes and those working for economic justice. For instead of being the allies that they should be, these two movements too often view each other as, if not the enemy, at least in close alliance with the enemy. As a result, each of these causes is hindered in its work as well as intellectually discredited in the eyes of many.
It is almost universally assumed that political positions can be placed along a line from Right to Left. For example, those on the Right want the government to leave them alone, to make money, but they want the authorities to watch closely everyone else’s behavior in bed and what they are reading, listening to, and viewing. In foreign policy they want a big stick—speaking softly is regarded as wimpy. Those of the Left, on the other hand, want the state not just to leave them alone while they pursue their own private pleasures, but, if possible, to finance them as well and prevent anyone else from making them feel bad about their behavior or its consequences. Regarding economic activity they laudably see the injustices caused by the free market, but their remedy is a new bureaucracy with fancy initials. Regarding foreign affairs they show a commendable desire for restraint in military operations, but in their own way—culturally—they desire to Americanize the world just as much as the Right. And the Center? Depending on the particular mix of opinions held, it can consist of the worst or the best of both sides, but usually it will be in basic agreement with either the Right or the Left, but make major concessions to the other side in the name of compromise and moderation.
What do I object to in all this? Two things. First, this system of putting positions on a spectrum often puts together what do not logically belong together. Why, for example, are those who favor laws protecting the unborn also supposed to favor an unrestrained Capitalism that ignores or exploits the weak? Actually the opposite ought to be true, for the logic for linking a laissez-faire approach to both commercial and sexual matters is pretty strong, as libertarians bear witness. The same is true, in an opposite way, concerning the Left. If one sees that intervention is necessary in economic affairs to safeguard the poor and working people, then it is assumed that one favors the legality of abortion and pornography. But there is no logical connection between these positions, in fact often the opposite.
My second objection is that we often classify at the same end of the spectrum positions that are actually opposed to one another. For example, the authoritarian regimes of the 1930s, such as Fascism in Italy and the governments of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal, are considered to be on the Right. Yet the economic policies of these states, supposedly one of the key points in determining whether an ideology is left or right, were clearly unlike those of the libertarians or Reaganites. These regimes favored and practiced regulation of the economy, directly or via intermediate bodies, and, so they argued, for the sake of the common good. They did not accept, even in theory, the unregulated market or regard economics as outside political considerations. Whether or not the economic policies of Mussolini, Franco, or Salazar ever really served the poor and the working class, as their proponents claimed, is beside the point. What is important is that these governments’ approach to economics regarded the state as one of the chief forces for good in the economy. Yet if the European authoritarian states and the Anglo-American free-marketeers are both of the Right, what consistent economic doctrine does the Right have?
More serious than this, though, is the fact that some of the economic ideas of the New Deal, especially the National Industrial Recovery Act, used the same economic approach as did these European corporate statists. Such proposals were widely denounced by what we call the Right in America as interference with the sacred right to do business as one pleases. How could these same ideas be right-wing in Europe and left-wing in the U.S.?
If, as is asserted, one can arrange positions on the spectrum by how much they reject governmental and other regulation of economic life, then where does one put Franco? The obvious place for him is among the Leftists who, like him, attempt to use government to order the economy for political purposes. And if one argues that despite rhetoric about social justice and the common good, Franco and those of a like mind favored the interests of the rich and did little or nothing for the poor, and thus they belong with Goldwater and Reagan, then we are no longer judging political theories but the results of their implementation or the sincerity of those who hold them. This is entirely different from positioning political ideas and theories; this involves questions of the prudence and effectiveness of practical measures and of the personal integrity of their promoters. Moreover, the same questions about sincerity and effectiveness can be asked of the masters of the Soviet regime and their allies, who were always placed on the Left, but did little for the poor and the working class.
If one considers modern papal social teaching, most recently embodied in John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, one sees another important body of social thought which cannot be easily placed on the spectrum. This tradition takes strong stands on a number of issues that would seem to place it well to the Left—e.g., the right of labor to organize and to receive a just wage, or the rejection of the free market as the leading force in the economy. Yet it affirms the right to private property as something peculiarly appropriate to man’s nature. Where to place this teaching on the spectrum has been a big problem for secular observers.
When William Jennings Bryan ran for president in 1896 he was considered a champion of the poor, the workers, and the exploited farmers—and correctly so. Later, after the Spanish-American War, he was a determined foe of American imperialism, and as Secretary of State under Wilson he worked to establish a system of treaties to reduce armaments and promote arbitration. But as a fundamentalist Protestant he opposed the teaching of evolution and supported Prohibition. Is he of the Right or the Left? Does his opposition to evolution, for example, make him of the Right, or does the fact that he saw in the theory of evolution a major intellectual justification for the social Darwinism that gave the rich clear consciences in their exploitation of the poor make him of the Left?
I have listed enough examples to show that our conventional grouping of people and positions does not correspond to reality, to the richness and variety of actual political positions. Yet it must be admitted that in some instances the conventional right/left spectrum does do an adequate job of classifying political figures and positions. For example, it seems to be the case that with regard to the important questions of regulation of or intervention in the economy, most conventional U.S. politicians and political viewpoints can be differentiated by degree, that is simply by the amount of regulation advocated, and placed along a spectrum without doing violence to anything important in their positions.
So what is going on here? Can anything be said that will make sense of both sets of facts? I think so. There is another way of classifying political positions that does justice to all the facts, both those that support the model of a unilinear spectrum and those that do not. It is as follows.
Our conventional notion of the spectrum considers that all positions can be differentiated merely by degree—i.e., every position is more to the Left or the Right and can be appropriately placed on a single line. However, this unilinear spectrum makes sense and corresponds with reality only within the framework of a broad philosophical position. The reason, for example, that it seems as if American political positions can be arranged according to their attitude toward government intervention in economic life is because all these positions are within the broad framework of the thought of John Locke. Locke was the consolidator of a tradition which at bottom considers human society and the state to be convenient institutions entered into solely for the sake of temporal gain. He himself was quite explicit about this, writing, for example, in his (first) Letter Concerning Toleration:
The commonwealth seems to me to be a society of men constituted only for procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.
Civil interests I call life, liberty, health, and indolency of body; and the possession of outward things, such as money, lands, houses, furniture, and the like.
It is the duty of the civil magistrate, by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people…the just possession of these things … If anyone presume to violate the laws of public justice and equity … his presumption is to be checked by the fear of punishment…
Depending on the material/temporal advantages sought and the means judged best to attain them, this tradition has given rise to great diversity in actual political positions. Considered in this way, Reagan is a right-Lockean, George McGovern a left-Lockean. Their differences are simply over how best to obtain and distribute various material goods. Essentially each of them wants a commonwealth where citizens play the game of obtaining desired material goods according to known and agreed upon rules, Locke’s “laws of public justice and equity.” Whether the goods played for are the economic rewards of the entrepreneur or the benefits from various government programs is really not important. Each side sees the purpose of society as simply to distribute these rewards.
Nearly all the political controversy in the U.S. since its founding has been between left and right-Lockeans, a kind of family feud. As Stanley Hauerwas correctly wrote in the NOR’s “Symposium on Transcending Ideological Conformity” (Oct. 1991):
I remain convinced by critics of classical liberalism that the Left and the Right in America are really brothers and sisters in spite of all their seeming disagreements. Both believe that good societies are those that try to achieve the freedom of the individual and then work for co-operation between those individuals in spite of the fact that they share nothing in common other than their commitment to the freedom of the individual.
When someone of authentic Catholic principles enters such a political arena, he will find himself agreeing with the right-Lockeans on many things and with the left-Lockeans on many things, but sometimes disagreeing over means, sometimes over reasons, and of course often over ends with both sides. But the point is, such a Catholic simply cannot be placed on this right/left spectrum, the usefulness of which is limited to those of the same philosophical background. The failure of our political terminology is that it assumes all political discourse can be contained within the one Lockean tradition because it knows nothing outside it.
But there are other traditions of political philosophy. One that is of the greatest importance is the Catholic tradition, though actually it is much older than the Church, having its beginnings in the thought of Plato, and Aristotle. Since this tradition regards the human community and the state as natural, not artificial, and as existing for more than merely material advantages, its approach to a host of problems differs from the various approaches within the Lockean tradition. In fact, even when its proposals coincide with the proposals made within the Lockean tradition, most often the rationale behind them is not the same. And on the vexed question of the economy, the Catholic tradition favors neither the free market nor centralized governmental regulation (the two contrary Lockean positions). Instead it favors self-regulation via autonomous groups, such as the guilds of the Middle Ages or various kinds of co-operatives, which indeed produce an economy subordinate to the common good but accomplish this independently of direct governmental control.
Another tradition of political philosophy is the Marxist. Though almost all socialism is one or another form of State Capitalism, with the disagreement with Capitalism being merely over means, not ends, Marxism does take a different view of the origin of the state, finding it neither in a social contract, as in Locke, nor in the nature of man, as in Aristotle and the Catholic tradition, but in class antagonisms. It rejects the state as the necessary, means for the harmonious existence of civil society, supposing that perfected men can live without the state, yet still in society. Thus it finds the natural place of man to be in society but without any political apparatus, whereas Locke considered man’s natural home to be outside both society and politics, and the Catholic tradition sees that both society and the state are according to human nature. Thus because of this major disagreement, Marxism is a separate tradition.
Now, given all this, are our present political terms and usage dangerous to Catholic political activity? As I said, if a Catholic looks at or takes part in political activity, at least in the U.S. and most English-speaking countries, he will find all political activity organized around a right/left Lockean perspective. People think of themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative; they form alliances and appeal to voters based on such perceptions; political commentators present all of our political life as existing within such a Lockean universe. And for most conventional American politicians this is adequate, though they should be aware that their universe is only the Lockean universe, not the entire cosmos. But what does one do with something like the pro-life movement? Is it of the Right or the Left? Since it defends the most elemental rights of a defenseless part of the population, the unborn, a grave issue of social justice, one would think that it was a cause of the Left. But it is linked in the perceptions of many with the Right because it opposes something considered necessary for sexual freedom by those on the libertine Left. So it looks for allies and spokesmen among those on the Right and unwittingly becomes even more linked with the entire right-wing program. But the pro-life movement cannot really be classed on the American/Lockean spectrum, because it is not Lockean. It is not really interested in obtaining material benefits for anyone, as if it supported the right to life only of those who would grow up to be successful. Its concerns arise from an elemental recognition of injustice. But Catholics taking part in the pro-life movement easily feel compelled to identify with either the Right or the Left, both because one obviously feels better working with allies and because the reigning conceptual framework urges them to consider themselves one or the other. We naturally classify people and things, and where our classifying tools are flawed and illusory we will usually, unless we think back to first principles, make flawed and illusory classifications.
This problem is equally real for those Catholics working in what we call leftist areas—e.g., for the poor, the homeless, Hispanic immigrants, or for economic justice generally. Usually these Catholics also feel the political and intellectual need to define themselves, and perforce place themselves on the Left. Now, in some cases these Catholics really are left Lockeans, but in other cases they are genuine Catholics who take up leftist causes simply because many of these causes are good. Most of us when placed in a milieu will identify with it and accept it. Thus Catholics who are concerned more with issues our society deems left will usually come to support the entire left program; similarly for those Catholics who are more concerned with issues our society puts on the Right. We Catholics, then, are made to serve others’ agendas and to subordinate a complete vision of Catholic political topics to a set of priorities that is not of our making and is even based on unreality.
We must discover that real Catholic politics are outside the Lockean spectrum, and we must learn to see ourselves as neither right nor left-Lockeans, but as Catholics, who ought to differ from one another only within the clear bounds of permissible Catholic teaching. When once we begin correctly to see ourselves for what we are, it will become harder for various self-interested parties to co-opt us for their own purposes as simply adjuncts of the Right or Left. There are enough Catholics in the U.S. and the world that if we were educated to understand what we are and what we stand for, then political commentators, not to speak of practicing politicians, would have to accommodate themselves to us, and at the same time to the real nature of things, as they realize that not everyone exists and thinks within a Lockean framework.

Great News From the Trip-I'm Going to Be a Great Grandfather!

Despite my regular sleeping schedule being from about 03.30 to 11.30, I'm trying to 'readjust' so I can spend more time with the family. I got up at 08.30 this morning.

Our oldest daughter and two of her children (minus our oldest grandson) arrived at about 23.30 last night. I had forgotten that today was Father's Day, so when I came out of the bedroom, I was greeted with 'Happy Father's Day' and a bit of news.

I was immediately informed that I'm am going to be a great grandfather! I have been joking for the last year or two that it was going to happen, and that I didn't feel old enough to be a great grandfather.

I am reminded of 23 years ago this October when we had a family conversation about grandchildren. I told Jenny not to be in a hurry, because I wasn't ready yet. She assured me that it would be several years, so I didn't need to worry. A few days later, she called me to inform me that I was going to be a grandfather in May!

At any rate, we're having a great time. Jenny and Amber are headed back to California in the morning, but our grandson is spending the week, and flying back to California at the end of our stay.


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 17 JUNE – SAINT GREGORY LUIGI BARBARIGO (Bishop an...: Gregory Luigi Barbarigo was born in Venice in 1625 to the Venetian Senator Giovanni Francesco Barbarigo and his wife Lucrezia Leoni. ...


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 17 JUNE – FOURTH SUNDAY AFTER PENTECOST: Dom Prosper Gueranger: The fourth Sunday after Pentecost was called for a long period in the West the Sunday of Mercy because, former...

17 June, A Chesterton Calendar

JUNE 17th

Just as the rivalry of armaments is only a sort of sulky plagiarism, so the rivalry of parties is only a sort of sulky inheritance. Men have votes, so women must soon have votes; poor children are taught by force, so they must soon be fed by force; the police shut public-houses by twelve o’clock, so soon they must shut them by eleven o’clock; children stop at school till they are fourteen, so soon they will stop till they are forty. No gleam of reason, no momentary return to first principles, no abstract asking of any obvious question, can interrupt this mad and monotonous gallop of mere progress by precedent.

‘What’s Wrong with the World.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44367-44373). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

18 June, The Roman Martyrology

ante diem xiv Kalendas Julias

June 18th anno Domini 2018 The 5th Day of the Moon were born into the better life: 

At Edessa in Mesopotamia, St. Ephraem, deacon of the church of Edessa in the time of Emperor Valens and confessor. After suffering many trials for the faith of Christ and gaining great renown for holiness and learning, he went to rest in the Lord. He was declared a doctor of the Universal Church by Pope Benedict XV.
At Rome, on the Ardeatine Way, in the persecution of Diocletian, the birthday of the saintly brothers Mark and Marcellian, martyrs, who were arrested by the judge Fabian, tied to a stake, and had sharp nails driven into their feet. Because they would not cease praising the name of Christ they were pierced through the sides with lances, and thus went to the kingdom of heaven with the glory of martyrdom.
At Malaga in Spain, the holy martyrs Cyriacus and the virgin Paula, who were overwhelmed with stones, and yielded up their souls to God.
At Tripoli in Phoenicia, in the time of the governor Adrian, St. Leontius, a soldier, who attained the crown of martyrdom through bitter torments together with the tribune Hypatius and Theodulus, whom he had converted to Christ.
Upon the same day, [at Nicomedia,] St. Aetherius, martyr, in the persecution of Diocletian. After enduring fire and other torments, he was put to death with the sword.
At Alexandria, the passion of St. Marina, virgin.
At Bordeaux, [in the fifth century,] the holy Confessor Amandus, Bishop [of that see.] 
At Sacca, in Sicily, [likewise in the fifth century,] the holy Hermit Calogerus, whose holiness is chiefly manifested in delivering them that arevexed with evil spirits. 
At Schoenaug, [in the year 1165,] the holy Virgin Elizabeth, celebrated for her observance of the monastic life. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Saturday, 16 June 2018

The Trip

Well, the Cuter & Shorter Half figured out how to get the A/C to work so it was a comfortable night sleeping. We're now in Red Feather Lakes. It doesn't look like I will have any connectivity at the cabin, but the public library, about a mile from it, in which I'm sitting and typing this, has 24/7 wi-fi, so if I have to I can come here and sit on the bench outside the door.

The chilluns and the grand chilluns will be here at the library in a few minutes to meet us. I think I have all my regular daily posts staged for the rest of our holiday. So, if I don't get to the library before we head home, I'll be posting again tomorrow week. Keep us all in your prayers, dear readers.

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on Is the Old Testament Calvinistic?

The Chevalier points out that his inquirer has the question backwards. Logically it has to be 'why are the Calvinists so Old Testament'. He then points out that, having rejected the sacrificing priesthood of Christ's Church, the Calvinists became like post-Temple Judaism, simply a church of scripture study and exposition.

The Transformation of Socialism

An essay by G.K. Chesterton

From the ChesterBelloc Mandate

Socialism is one of the simplest ideas in the world. It has always puzzled me how there came to be so much bewilderment and misunderstanding and miserable mutual slander about it. At one time I agreed with Socialism, because it was simple. Now I disagree with Socialism, because it is too simple. Yet most of its opponents still seem to treat it, not merely as an iniquity but as a mystery of iniquity, which seems to mystify them even more than it maddens them. It may not seem strange that its antagonists should be puzzled about what it is. It may appear more curious and interesting that its admirers are equally puzzled. Its foes used to denounce Socialism as Anarchy, which is its opposite. Its friends seemed to suppose that it is a sort of optimism, which is almost as much of an opposite. Friends and foes alike talked as if it involved a sort of faith in ideal human nature; why I could never imagine. The Socialist system, in a more special sense than any other, is founded not on optimism but on original sin. It proposes that the State, as the conscience of the community, should possess all primary forms of property; and that obviously on the ground that men cannot be trusted to own or barter or combine or compete without injury to themselves. Just as a State might own all the guns lest people should shoot each other, so this State would own all the gold and land lest they should cheat or rackrent or exploit each other. It seems extraordinarily simple and even obvious; and so it is. It is too obvious to be true. But while it is obvious, it seems almost incredible that anybody ever thought it optimistic.

I am myself primarily opposed to Socialism, or Collectivism or Bolshevism or whatever we call it, for a primary reason not immediately involved here: the ideal of property. I say the ideal and not merely the idea; and this alone disposes of the moral mistake in the matter. It disposes of all the dreary doubts of the Anti-Socialists about men not yet being angels, and all the yet drearier hopes of the Socialists about men soon being supermen. I do not admit that private property is a concession to baseness and selfishness; I think it is a point of honour. I think it is the most truly popular of all points of honour. But this, though it has everything to do with my plea for a domestic dignity, has nothing to do with this passing summary of the situation of Socialism. I only remark in passing that it is vain for the more vulgar sort of Capitalists, sneering at ideals, to say to me that in order to hate Socialism "You must alter human nature." I answer "Yes. You must alter it for the worse."

The clouds were considerably cleared away from the meaning of Socialism by the Fabians of the 'nineties; by Mr. Bernard Shaw, a sort of anti-romantic Quixote, who charged chivalry as chivalry charged windmills, with Sidney Webb for his Sancho Panza. In so far as these paladins had a castle to defend, we may say that their castle was the Post Office. The red pillar-box was the immovable post against which the irresistible force of Capitalist individualism was arrested. Business men who said that nothing could be managed by the State were forced to admit that they trusted all their business letters and business telegrams to the State.

After all, it was not found necessary to have an office competing with another office, trying to send out pinker postage-stamps or more picturesque postmen. It was not necessary to efficiency that the postmistress should buy a penny stamp for a halfpenny and sell it for two pence; or that she should haggle and beat customers down about the price of a postal order; or that she should always take tenders for telegrams. There was obviously nothing actually impossible about the State management of national needs; and the Post Office was at least tolerably managed. Though it was not always a model employer, by any means, it might be made so by similar methods. It was not impossible that equitable pay, and even equal pay, could be given to the Post-Master-General and the postman. We had only to extend this rule of public responsibility, and we should escape from all the terror of insecurity and torture of compassion, which hag-rides humanity in the insane extremes of economic inequality and injustice. As Mr. Shaw put it, "A man must save Society's honour before he can save his own."

That was one side of the argument: that the change would remove inequality; and there was an answer on the other side. It can be stated most truly by putting another model institution and edifice side by side with the Post Office. It is even more of an ideal republic, or commonwealth without competition or private profit. It supplies its citizens not only with the stamps but with clothes and food and lodging, and all they require. It observes considerable level of equality in these things; notably in the clothes. It not only supervises the letters but all the other human communications; notable the sort of evil communications that corrupt good manners. This twin model to the Post Office is called the Prison. And much of the scheme for a model State was regarded by its opponents as a scheme for a model prison; good because it fed men equally, but less acceptable since it imprisoned them equally.

It is better to be in a bad prison than in a good one. From the standpoint of the prisoner this is not at all a paradox; if only because in a bad prison he is more likely to escape. But apart from that, a man was in many ways better off in the old dirty and corrupt prison, where he could bribe turnkeys to bring him drink and meet fellow prisoners to drink with. Now that is exactly the difference between the present system and the proposed system. Nobody worth talking about respects the present system. Capitalism is a corrupt prison. That is the best that can be said for Capitalism. But it is something to be said for it; for a man is a little freer in that corrupt prison than he would be in a complete prison. As a man can find one jailer more lax than another, so he could find one employer more kind than another; he has at least a choice of tyrants. In the other case he finds the same tyrant at every turn. Mr. Shaw and other rational Socialists have agreed that the State would be in practice government by a small group. Any independent man who disliked that group would find his foe waiting for him at the end of every road.

It may be said of Socialism, therefore, very briefly, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty. On the one hand it was said that the State could provide homes and meals for all, on the other it was answered that this could only be done by State officials who would inspect houses and regulate meals. The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had even been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it. Since it was supposed to gain equality at the sacrifice of liberty, we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality. Indeed, there was not the faintest attempt to gain equality, least of all economic equality. But there was a very spirited and vigourous effort to eliminate liberty, by means of an entirely new crop of crude regulations and interferences. But it was not the Socialist State regulating those whom it fed, like children or even like convicts. It was the Capitalist State raiding those whom it had trampled and deserted in every sort of den, like outlaws or broken men. It occurred to the wiser sociologists that, after all, it would be easy to proceed more promptly to the main business of bullying men, without having gone through the laborious preliminary business of supporting them. After all it was easy to inspect the house without having helped to build it; it was even possible, with luck, to inspect the house in time to prevent it being built. All that is described in the documents of the Housing Problem; for the people of this age loved problems and hated solutions. It was easy to restrict the diet without providing the dinner. All that can be found in the documents of what is called Temperance Reform.

In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad. All that official discipline, about which the Socialists themselves were in doubt or at least on the defensive, was taken over bodily by the Capitalists. They have now added all the bureaucratic tyrannies of a Socialist state to the old plutocratic tyrannies of a Capitalist State. For the vital point is that it did not in the smallest degree diminish the inequalities of a Capitalist State. It simply destroyed such individual liberties as remained among its victims. It did not enable any man to build a better house; it only limited the houses he might live in --- or how he might manage to live there, forbidding him to keep pigs or poultry or to sell beer or cider. It did not even add anything to a man's wages; it only took away something from a man's wages and locked it up, whether he liked it or not, in a sort of money-box which was regarded as a medicine-chest. It does not send food into the house to feed the children; it only sends an inspector into the house to punish the parents for having no food to feed them. It does not see that they have got a fire; it only punishes them for not having a fireguard. It does not even occur to it to provide the fireguard.

Now this anomalous situation will probably ultimately evolve into the Servile State of Mr. Belloc's thesis. The poor will sink into slavery; it might as correctly be said that the poor will rise into slavery. That is to say, sooner or later, it is very probable that the rich will take over the philanthropic as well as the tyrannic side of the bargain; and will feed men like slaves as well as hunting them like outlaws. But for the purpose of my own argument it is not necessary to carry the process so far as this, or indeed any farther than it has already gone. The purely negative stage of interference, at which we have stuck for the present, is in itself quite favourable to all these eugenical experiments. The capitalist whose half-conscious thought and course of action I have simplified into a story in the preceding chapters, finds this insufficient solution quite sufficient for his purposes. What he has felt for a long time is that he must check or improve the reckless and random breeding of the submerged race, which is at once outstripping his requirements and failing to fulfil his needs. Now the anomalous situation has already accustomed him to stopping things. The first interferences with sex need only be negative; and there are already negative interferences without number. So that the study of this stage of Socialism brings us to the same conclusion as that of the ideal of liberty as formally professed by Liberalism. The ideal of liberty is lost, and the ideal of Socialism is changed, till it is a mere excuse for the oppression of the poor.

The first movements for intervention in the deepest domestic concerns of the poor all had this note of negative interference. Official papers were sent round to the mothers in poor streets; papers in which a total stranger asked these respectable women questions which a man would be killed for asking, in the class of what we called gentlemen or in the countries of what were called free men. They were questions supposed to refer to the conditions of maternity; but the point is here that the reformers did not begin by building up those economic or material conditions. They did not attempt to pay money or establish property to create those conditions. They never give anything --- except orders. Another form of the intervention, and one already mentioned, is the kidnapping of children upon the most fantastic excuses of sham psychology. Some people established an apparatus of tests and trick questions; which might make an amusing game of riddles for the family fireside, but seems an insufficient reason for mutilating and dismembering the family. Others became interested in the hopeless moral condition of children born in the economic condition which they did not attempt to improve. They were great on the fact that crime was a disease; and carried on their criminological studies so successfully as to open the reformatory for little boys who played truant; there was not reformatory for reformers. I need not pause to explain that crime is not a disease. It is criminology that is a disease.

Finally one thing may be added which is at least clear. Whether or no the organisation of industry will issue positively in a eugenical reconstruction of the family, it has already issued negatively, as in the negations already noted, in a partial destruction of it. It took the form of a propaganda of popular divorce, calculated at least to accustom the masses to a new notion of the shifting and re-grouping of families. I do not discuss the question of divorce here, as I have done elsewhere, in its intrinsic character; I merely note it as one of these negative reforms which have been substituted for positive economic equality. It was preached with a weird hilarity, as if the suicide of love were something not only humane but happy. But it need not be explained, and certainly it need not be denied, that the harassed poor of a diseased industrialism were indeed maintaining marriage under every disadvantage, and often found individual relief in divorce. Industrialism does produce many unhappy marriages, for the same reason that it produces so many unhappy men. But all the reforms were directed to rescuing the industrialism rather than the happiness. Poor couples were to be divorced because they were already divided. Through all this modern muddle there runs the curious principle of sacrificing the ancient uses of things because they do not fit in with the modern abuses. When the tares are found in the wheat, the greatest promptitude and practicality is always shown in burning the wheat and gathering the tares into the barn. And since the serpent coiled about the chalice had dropped his poison in the wine of Cana, analysts were instantly active in the effort to preserve the poison and to pour away the wine.


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 16 JUNE РFERIA: Saint John Francis Regis, S.J. (1597-1640) On this day according to the ROMAN MARTYROLOGY: At Besan̤on in France, the holy martyrs Fer...

16 June, A Chesterton Calendar

JUNE 16th

Blasphemy is an artistic effect, because blasphemy depends on a philosophical conviction. Blasphemy depends upon belief, and is fading with it. If anyone doubts this, let him sit down seriously and try to think blasphemous thoughts about Thor. I think his family will find him at the end of the day in a state of some exhaustion.


Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44363-44366). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

17 June, The Roman Martyrology

ante diem xv Kalendas Julias

June 17th anno Domini 2018 The 4th Day of Moon were born into the better life: 

In England, the holy Abbot Botolph. 
At Rome, two hundred and sixty two holy martyrs, who were slain for Christ's faith's sake in the persecution under Diocletian, and were buried at Cucumber Hill, upon the old Salarian Way. 
At Tarracina, the holy soldier Montanus, who, after many torments, received the crown of martyrdom under Hadrian the Emperor and Leontius the Consular. 
At Venafro, the holy martyrs Nicander and Marcian, who were beheaded in the persecution under Maximian. 
At Chalcedon, the holy martyrs Manuel, Sabel, and Ishmael. They were envoys who had been sent by the King of Persia to Julian the Apostate to treat for peace. Julian commanded them to worship idols, and, forasmuch as they steadfastly refused so to do, he caused them to be slain with the sword. 
At Apollonia, in Macedonia, the holy martyrs Isaurus a Deacon, Innocent, Felix, Jeremiah, and Peregrine, Athenians, who were in divers ways tormented and then beheaded, under the Tribune Tripontius. 
At Amelia, in Umbria, [in the sixth century,] the holy Himerius, Bishop [of that see,] whose body was taken to Cremona, [five hundred years later.] 
In Berry, [also in the sixth century,] holy Gundulph, Bishop [of that see.] 
At Orleans, [in the year 530,] the holy Priest and Confessor Avitus. 
In Phrygia, [in the fifth century,] the holy Confessor Hypatius. 
Also, [in the year 1160,] the holy Hermit Bessarion. 
At Pisa, in Tuscany, [in the year 1160,] the holy Confessor Rainerius. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Friday, 15 June 2018

OK, So I lied! LOL!

Well, I said the Itinerarium at 07.30, and we dropped the dog at the vet's and were Colorado bound by 09.30. We've made it to Sterling, Colorado. It's about three more hours to Red Feather Lakes, via Fort Collins. We're staying the night in a cheap, mom'n'pop motel. It's clean and neat, but the A/C doesn't work. Of course, it's a cool 86 F here, so it's cooler than my room at home! 😀

Signing Off For Now-Colorado Bound!

This may be my last post until we return from our family holiday. As I've said, I don't know what sort of internet connectivity I will have, and there are grandchildren to play with and beer to be drunk with my children.

I think I have Memes of the Day, The Roman Martyrology, and A Chesterton Calendar staged for each day. If I have connectivity, I will try to post Mrs Bogna's posts from In Lumine Fidei each day. I also think I have a video of Chevalier Charles Coulombe for every day, but some that are posted are missing any of my commentary, and are quite a bit longer than usual. I didn't get around to finding enough Distributists/Integralist essays to post for every day, for which I apologise.

However, I will return to my regular posting when we return Sunday week. In the meantime, I ask my readers for their prayers for a safe and joyful holiday with our children and grandchildren.

God bless you all.


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 15 JUNE – SAINTS VITUS, MODESTUS AND CRESCENTIA (M...: Unknown to his pagan father, Vitus (or Guy) was baptised as a child. When his father found out, he used his best endeavours to dissuade V...

15 June, A Chesterton Calendar

JUNE 15th

‘Certainly, it is untrue that three is no company. Three is splendid company. Three is the ideal number for pure comradeship: as in the ‘Three Musketeers.’ But if you reject the proverb altogether; if you say that two and three are the same sort of company; if you cannot see that there is a wider abyss between two and three than between three and three million— then I regret to inform you that you shall have no company either of two or three, but shall be alone in a howling desert till you die.’

‘Alarms and Discursions.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44357-44362). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

16 June, The Roman Martyrology

ante diem xvi Kalendas Julias

June 16th anno Domini 2018 The 3rd Day of the Moon were born into the better life: 

At Besançon, in Gaul, the holy martyrs Ferreolus a Priest and Ferrutio a Deacon, who were sent forth by the blessed Irenaeus, Bishop [of Lyon,] to preach the Word of God, whereafter they were divers ways tormented and then beheaded under Claudius the judge. 
At Tarsus, in Cilicia, under the Emperor Diocletian, the holy martyrs Quiricus and his mother Julitta. 
Quiricus was a little boy of three years old when his mother was horribly scourged before the President Alexander, he vehemently wept and lamented her, whereupon he was killed by being dashed against the steps of the judgment-seat. Julitta, after horrid stripes and grievous torments, was beheaded, and so finished her testimony. 
At Mainz, the holy martyrs Aureus and his sister Justina, and the others who were at Communion in the Church when they were massacred by the Huns, who were wasting Germany, [in the year 451.] 
At Limasol, in Cyprus, holy Tycho, Bishop [of that see,] in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger. 
At Lyon, [in the year 551,] the blessed Aurelian, Bishop of Arles. 
At Nantes, in Brittany, [in the year 310,] the holy Confessor Similian, Bishop [of that see.] 
At Meissen, in Germany, [in the year 1106,] holy Benno, Bishop [of that see.] 
At the village of La Louvesc, in the Diocese of Vienne, in the Ardèche, [in the year 1640,] the holy Confessor John Francis Regis, of the Society of Jesus, a man of wonderful love and long-suffering in seeking the salvation of souls, whom Pope Clement XII added to the list of the Saints. 
In Brabant, [in the year 1246,] the holy Virgin Lutgard. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

Thursday, 14 June 2018

“Catholic” Group Praises Vote to Legalize Abortion, Claims “Catholics Can be” Pro-Abortion

'Catholics for Choice' should change their name. There are several options. Heretics for Choice, Excommunicates for Choice, Former Catholics for Choice. Need I go on?

From LifeNews

A pro-abortion group that claims to be Catholic praised lawmakers in Argentina for voting to legalize the killing of unborn babies Thursday.
The lower house of Argentina narrowly passed the bill in a 129 to 125 vote, moving it to the upper house for consideration, The Guardian reports. President Mauricio Macri said he will not veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
The radical pro-abortion bill would legalize abortions for any reason up to 14 weeks of pregnancy and up to nine months in a wide variety of circumstances, including risks to the mother’s “physical, psychological or social health,” Crux reports. “Social health” reasons include breaking up with a significant other or being fired from a job, according to the report.
Religious hospitals also would be forced to abort unborn babies under the legislation.
Argentina is a strongly Catholic country, and Pope Francis was born there. Catholics have been some of the strongest voices against the legislation.
However, one pro-abortion group that claims to be Catholic lauded the vote.
Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, told The Guardian: “As Ireland, and Chile before it, have demonstrated, Catholics can be and often are pro-choice. And indeed Catholic-majority countries can and often do support legislation for safe and legal abortion. Catholics revere individual conscience and support policies that allow all women – especially those without power and privilege – to make their own moral decisions about their bodies safely and freely.”
Abortion activists claim women are dying from illegal abortions (though they die from legal ones as well). But former abortion activists say these numbers often are vastly over-inflated. Pro-lifers also contend that legalizing abortion does not make it safer for the woman, it only allows back alley abortionists to practice openly.
In a statement Thursday, the country’s Catholic bishops said they will not give up fighting for the unborn.
“The hurt for the forgetting and the exclusion of the innocents must be transformed into strength and hope, to continue fighting for the dignity of human life,” they said in a statement.
Legalizing abortion will not help women, it only will strip away rights from babies in the womb, the bishops continued. They urged the upper house to reject the bill and consider real solutions to women’s problems.
“The situation of women facing an unexpected pregnancy, the explosion of poverty, social marginalization and gender violence remain without a solution,” they said.
Argentina currently protects unborn babies from abortion, except in cases of rape and risks to the mother’s life.
Like many other South American countries, Argentina has been facing intense international pressure to legalize abortion. Human Rights Watch, which receives funding from American billionaire George Soros, has been pushing its abortion agenda on Argentina for years.
Some of the strongest voices for unborn babies in Argentina are people who realize they could have been aborted. A man named Christian shared his story with lawmakers in May.
He said his mother had been raped at a very young age and became pregnant with him. Rather than consider abortion, she made an adoption plan with a family who she knew would take good care of him, he said.

“The question we should ask ourselves today is not when does life begin, but rather how much is a life worth. Let’s all allow other babies to be born, as I was able to be born, because otherwise I would have been another aborted baby,” Christian said.

Francis Tweets

His homeland of Argentina is in the process of sinking into the abyss of the murder of the unborn and he tweets about the World Cup?!

How long, O Lord, how long?

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on Bad South American Countries

The Chevalier points out that a major reason for the failure of most Latin American countries is Yankee meddling, specifically by always supporting the anti-Catholic, anticlerical, freemasonic parties.

Argentina Legalises the Murder of the Unborn

Again, this was foisted on the country through parliamentary action, unlike Ireland where the people voted it in.

Unsurprisingly, once again, there was no word of support for the Culture of Life or Catholic Teaching from a prominent Argentine Catholic who lives in a hotel in the Vatican City.

Capitalism and Communism Part Two, by Fr. Vincent McNabb

And here's what Belloc had to say about Father McNabb,
The greatness of his character, of his learning, his experience, and, above all, his judgement, was altogether separate from the world about him... the most remarkable aspect of all was the character of holiness... I can write here from intimate personal experience ... I have known, seen and felt holiness in person... I have seen holiness at its full in the very domestic paths of my life, and the memory of that experience, which is also a vision, fills me now as I write — so fills me that there is nothing now to say.
From the ChesterBelloc Mandate

Look at the way they are wasting things in Russia-appalling. And the extraordinary thing is this, that waste of material is also waste of time. When you get a unit of human existence, a human individual, the most economic time-saving thing there is, there he is. But now you have got a person here and someone else there, and he has to invent the most infernal things to get ground. Waste of time! Consider the economic values consumed by the gentleman who merely punches a hole in a piece of cardbord-waste of time! It is almost essentially based on a waste of human life. If you waste time you are also implicitly wasting human life, and I think that is a terrible thing.

One of the things that proved that to me very much, and I think it is a sort of inevitable thing (mind you, specious arguments can be brought against it) was this. I remember studying profoundly a Medical Officer of Health's Annual Report-I have always found novels too dull. And I came across the most extraordinary law: that if you took the richer quarters of that town and the poorest quarters, you found the infant mortality was constant in all the towns, and it worked out almost to a mathematical equality as well as a constant. In all the Annual Reports that I read and studied found that it worked out that the infant mortality in the slum neighbourhoods was about four times as great as in the best-to-do neighourhoods. That is as if three out of every four of those children were killed at birth. That is part of the collective hypocrisy at the present time. We think we are very careful of human life. Waste of human life! It has defied the intelligent but well-meaning people to get any remedy. It seems to be a necessity of a system of mass production, the only primary thing of which would almost seem to be, if not the sin of avarice, some other sin-which would mean the denial of the supremacy of the spiritual, and by that I mean the intellectual. Therefore I feel myself that all that is in its essence immoral-against ethics; that it is very difficult to show it; that there can be the most excellent people in it; that I am not necessarily condemning anybody in it-possibly we are all in it.

I want therefore to enunciate that thesis, that I consider your Capitalistic or your Communistic organisation is, in its very essence, unethical, and that in the end it will bring a certain thing which the believer in God will call punishment, and which others can call what they like.

I think I owe it to myself and you to say that I do love little things because I love the greatness that is possible through them. The greatness of intellectual culture. I think sometimes that men and women who are little accustomed to intellectual culture, fear that by going back to things primary there is a danger of losing intellectual culture. I think that reason now is a little imperilled; that reason is one of the rare things in the modern world. I believe we shall not recover our reason until we get back to something simple in our modern life. We have to simplify so much of human life. And my invitation-which is the invitation of my Master-to something simpler, is like all His invitations, it is a Sursum Corda-Lift up your minds! Your very civilisation, your intelligence, is imperilled. I often think that your very ear for music is imperilled with the noises of your machines.

These islands, I think, took some of the music of the sea fret. They were almost unrivalled, I think, in their music. I think no people can sing so sweetly as those that listen here to the heart of the sea on our coasts, and I am terrified that we are losing that sensitive ear. Do you know I am terrified of losing even the msuci of our mother tongue. I have only one thing, my tongue, my voice, but it is of more value to me than ten thousand things that you produce by machinery; and I had rather hear you speak, and I had rather hear those south-west winds playing against my brow, than I would hear those things that some think a triumph.

I live almost in terror of our losing the culture that somehow or another was the gift of the old Pre-Christian days, and of the incarnate crucified Saviour. and when I went abroad to the great continent which used to be considered the be all and end all of social perfection, I almost fled. I wanted the music of the old language. I wanted the littleness of the English village. I wanted the home. I said of New York, "There are no homes: so I came home." And to-night I am only addressing a little thing, but I would rather address this voice of mine to your beloved intelligence than through some mechanical device of an age that was vast and vulgar.

Update on Our Trip

Well, the bad news is, the car died! The good news is that it died as my Cuter and Shorter Half was returning from buying another car. She's picking it up this morning, and Friday morning, as soon as the vet opens (the dog's hotel whilst we're gone. LOL!), we're on the road!

Chevalier Charles Coulombe on The Irish & Abortion

This is one of those occasions where a Charles Coulombe video is too important to wait until 15.00.

I have seldom seen the Chevalier angry, and never as angry as in this video. He pulls no punches. He points out the inconvenient truth that many people in the 33% who stood solid for life, and voted against the murder of the unborn were protestant members of the viciously anti-Catholic Loyal Order of the Orange. You know, those guys who love Cromwell for what he did to the Catholic Irish. The Chevalier says that he never wants to hear an Irishman who voted for abortion denounce Cromwell again. He points out that the Irish have abdicated the moral high ground they've had for centuries because of their suffering at the hands of the English.

He points out that the Irish voted for this abomination! In Britain it was put in by Parliament. In the US by the diktat of nine unelected judges. In every other country on the face of the earth, the killing of babies was foisted upon the people by parliaments or judges. Not so in Ireland! In Ireland the people voted to murder the unborn.

What is the future of Ireland? As Mother Theresa said, 'Any nation that kills its children has no future!'


IN LUMINE FIDEI: 14 JUNE – SAINT BASIL THE GREAT (Bishop, Confessor...: Basil, the most celebrated of the Greek Fathers, came of a family of saints, the best known being his father, Saint Basil the Elder, his ...

14 June, A Chesterton Calendar

JUNE 14th

You say your civilization will include all talents. Will it? Do you really mean to say that at the moment when the Esquimaux has learnt to vote for a County Council, you will have learnt to spear a walrus?

‘The Napoleon of Notting Hill.’

Chesterton, G. K.. The G. K. Chesterton Collection [50 Books] (Kindle Locations 44354-44357). Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle Edition.

15 June, The Roman Martyrology

ante diem xvii Kalendas Julias

Tomorrow we keep the feast of 

The Octave of the most Sacred Heart of Jesus.
St. Philip Neri, of whom mention is made in the Martyrology for May 26. 
June 15th anno Domini 2018 The 2nd Day of the Moon were born into the better life: 
At the river Silaro, in Lucania, the holy martyrs Vitus, Modestus, and Crescentia, who were brought thither from Sicily under the Emperor Diocletian there by the power of God they overcame boiling lead and wild beasts, and finished the course of their glorious fight by being broken alive upon a block. 
At Dorostorum, in Mysia, the holy soldier Hesychius, who was arrested along with blessed Julius, and was crowned with martyrdom after him, under the President Maximus. 
At Cordova, in Spain, [in the persecution under the Muslims,] the holy martyr Benildes. 
At Zephyrium, in Cilicia, the holy martyr Dulas, who under the President Maximus was for Christ's Name's sake beaten with rods, laid upon a gridiron and smeared with burning oil, and suffered other things also, and so as a conqueror grasped the palm of martyrdom. 
At Palmyra, in Syria, the holy sisters Libya and Leonis, and Eutropia, a damsel of twelve years of age, who through divers torments attained unto the crown of martyrdom. 
At Valenciennes, [in the year 686,] the holy Landalin, Abbot [of Crespin.] 
At Clermont, [in the year 472,] the holy Confessor Abraham, [Abbot of St. Cirgues,] illustrious for his holiness and wonderful works. 
At Valais, [in the year 1008,] the holy Confessor Bernard of Menthon. 
At Pibrac, in the Diocese of Toulouse, the holy Virgin Germaine Cousin, a shepherdess, who lived poor and lowly, and after many woes, borne with the greatest long-suffering, passed away to the Divine Bridegroom, [in the year 1601.] After her death she became famous for many miracles, and the Supreme Pontiff Pius IX. enrolled her name among those of the holy Virgins. 
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Wednesday, 13 June 2018

Gay Irish Prime Minister: Catholic Hospitals ‘Will be Required’ to Abort Babies

Why am I not surprised? The Taoiseach obviously intends to crush Catholicism in Ireland. The irony is that he heads Fine Gael, a party that started out on the Right of Irish politics. Hell! Colonel Duffy's National Guard, the so-called 'Blue Shirts' were one of the parties that founded Fine Gael. Many of their members went to Spain to join la Cruzada and fight with Franco against men like Leo Varadkar!

And it was announced on the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima (New Calendar)! I wonder if that was a deliberate insult to the Mother of God, or if their Master, Satan, just moved them to do it?

From LifeSiteNews

DUBLIN, June 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) - Ireland’s homosexual pro-abortion Prime Minister has announced that Catholic hospitals in the country will be obliged to perform abortions. 
Leo Varadkar said that when the new laws liberalizing abortion come into effect, even Catholic institutions will have to offer the procedure. 
Individual doctors, nurses or midwives will be allowed to refrain from committing abortions on conscience grounds, but whole institutions will not have this option.  
According to the BBC, Varadkar’s government is currently writing a law that would allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks on healthy babies and “in extreme cases” up to 24 weeks. 
The Irish taoiseach (“chief”)  said that the new law would follow the model of the “Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013” which provided for abortion in certain circumstances and allowed medical personnel to opt out. 
“It will not, however, be possible for publicly-funded hospitals, no matter who their patron or owner is, to opt out of providing these necessary services which will be legal in this state once this legislation is passed by the Dáil (government) and Seanad (senate),” he warned.
Varadkar underscored that individuals would be allowed to “opt out based on their consciences or their religious convictions” but that institutions would not be allowed to do so.  
"So, just as is the case now in the legislation for the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, hospitals like for example Holles Street, which is a Catholic voluntary ethos hospital, the Mater, St Vincent's and others will be required, and will be expected to, carry out any procedure that is legal in this state and that is the model we will follow."
This follows a post-referendum survey showing that a majority of family doctors in Ireland will conscientiously object to committing abortion and do not intend to provide the so-called service. Of 936 general practitioners (GPS), 68% would not “opt in” to become abortionists.   
In response to the results of this survey, Dr. Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign suggested that the Health Minister’s assumption that Irish doctors will just go along with the governments pro-abortion agenda is divorced from reality.
“Listening to Minister Simon Harris you’d get the impression that GPs are fully on board with the Government’s abortion plans but nothing could be further from the truth,” she said. 
“Forcing GPs to participate in abortions that have nothing to do with healthcare is an extreme and unjust attack on freedom of conscience and should be resisted at all costs,” she continued. “It is unconscionable for Minister Harris and the Government to compel doctors who don’t wish to dispense abortion pills to refer women to colleagues who will carry out the procedure.”  
“We are witnessing something truly appalling at present – a government that seems prepared to trample on freedom of conscience in order to keep the pretence going that their abortion proposals are somehow medically indicated and based. It is very reassuring though to see the numbers of GPs who are voicing their opposition….”​