Our discussion on Pope Francis’ New Year’s resolutions was excellent. I was somewhat surprised at some of the views. But then I am one of his fans. So, I thought that, being the holidays, it might be useful to look at a real life moral problem in between the brandy butter and the Angel on the tree.
I take you back to the ‘60s when I was a marriage counsellor in the local parishes. The story is true – although I have made a few minor changes for the sake of security.
A couple was sent to me. They had a problem. They had three children, but the wife had developed a condition often called “white leg of pregnancy.” She had been told that another pregnancy was likely to be mortal.
In those days, you will remember, artificial contraception was not so reliable as it is today. But even if the Church had allowed it, it was far too dangerous. As for the ‘safe period’, the doctor fell about laughing. So it would appear that the couple were obliged to give up the sexual element in the marriage.
The last possibility was sterilisation. It was clearly strongly forbidden by the Church on the ground that since the organs involved were themselves in good order, it could not be justified. (Catechism. 2297). The couple decided that it should be the wife (fallopian tubes) – because she could never have children in practice while the husband might do so (vas deferens) in a second marriage. The couple argued that the sexual expression of the marriage was fundamental to the relationship.
As a ‘good’ marriage counsellor, I did not instruct them either way. But I helped them through asking questions, and providing relevant information, including the Church’s views of such matters. Some years later I would have reminded them that the teaching of Humanae Vitae led several bishops to remind their flock that conscience must be followed, even if it leads to a decision which is counter to the Church’s teaching.
Now I ask you what decision you would take if you were in such a quandary as my couple?
I tell you this story because our discussion on Pope Francis seems to focus between a concern for weakening the Church’s long held moral laws, and a view that these are not necessarily the final answer but need to be seen in context. The first view is convenient to maintain: we all know where we are. Our sterilised couple will go to Hell if they do not repent. We are not allowed to do something forbidden whatever benefit may result. The second view is often known as Proportionalism: here, you examine all the plusses and minuses of an issue and follow the best and most loving path you can discern. JPII was strongly against Proportionalism (See his encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.) But Francis appears to favour it – without, as far as I know, using the name.
secondsightblogdotnet 
What is really shaking up the Church with Francis is more his proposed shift in governance and less his position on moral questions, such as the example you give us.
The shift to “the Synod” or “Synodality” as it is called, even though it has been around a few decades before Francis, is felt to be the shaking of the foundations. Some think.
The history of the Church shows that changes like this have happened before.
For example the Creation of a College of Cardinals and the Roman Curia as ways of organizing and running the Church
– and seen in their historical context, monarchical times mostly, they would have been very persuasive means of governance.But surely no less controversial as Synodality today.
Just read Francis’ encyclicals and see how often he sources his teaching from the different Synods from around the Catholic world.
Further, the Catholic Catechism or Canon Law are important tools but they do not formulate for us how we should do Church.
That is the challenge some ages have to confront, as in our great scientific/techno advanced age of secular consumerist liberalism, in which we have been destined to live.
Things need to change to live and that is just as true for the Church.
We should not mistake the manuals for the Gospel, or our models of Church for Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit.
Synodality means Church leaders walking with the rest of God’s people, listening, as Francis so often puts it. The result of such listening to both Gospel and God’s people and prayerful discernment with the help of The Holy Spirit can be difficult.
– – – – – –
You question is such a good example of how the contexts and cultures in which human beings seek to survive, change. In our case, they change very rapidly.
The mutuality of the couples’ love would have greater prominence in our time than back then and probably there would be better medical and pastoral support today too.
There is not just a risk to the survival of children in this case but a risk too, to the survival of the marriage itself.
I recognise the good service you provided with your empathic listening and informing others of the Gospel by which they seek to live, as well as their remedial options.
If it were me, having done what you did, I would then respect the conscientious decision of two baptized people.
– – –
Another amazing year of stimulating, teasing and enlightening exchanges on your wonderful Blog Quentin. Thank you.
Stables are smelly places, and shepherds were such social undesirables (there would not have been too many “facilities” for them living in the fields). Yet Jesus accepted honor both there and from then. And that gives me hope.
A blessing of a hope filled Christmas to you, Quentin and to all my fellow contributors here – it is all a joy. Thank you everyone and have a great Holiday this Christmas.
‘the organs involved were themselves in good order’ … but not for a safe pregnancy it would seem. The organs for removal may have been in good order, but if mortality would have been the out come of using them, seems to me, the organ itself is ‘dysfunctional’ by functioning; as using it would lead to a ‘mortal sin’ of wilfully causing mortal illness. …. ??? …
The whole is of greater value than the sum (or minus?) of it’s parts.
First time i’ve thought of ‘if your eye causes you to sin then pluck it out’ an a physical concept.
By your analogy the seven sons in Maccabees should have eaten the pork since not eating it would cause their death.
Quentin writes:
// Now I ask you what decision you would take if you were in such a quandary as my couple? //
It depends on who I am. If I believe that I have a God-given right to sexual pleasure in intercourse and that that right trumps the Church’s old-fashioned and sadistic moral laws, and if I want to continue to be a practicing Catholic, I’ll find clergy who’ll give me a pass and I’ll try to convince my wife to submit to sterilization. The onus is on her, because she must never again risk giving birth, whereas if she were to die or if we were to divorce (with the blessing of compliant clergy, of course) I might want to have more children. If I’m a traditional Catholic, I’ll play it by the book.
God is the Creator. A couple never has the right to sexual intercourse that leaves God out by contracepting. I have been teaching Natural Methods in every improved method since the I was asked to by other teachers in 1963
A few years ago a couple asked me to teach them. They had been told never to have another child as the Mother would surely die. She was not a Catholic and was offered to be sterilised at the caesarian section but she refused. They learned her ovulation cycle and they prayerfully waited for the infertile time. They did not block God’s creative action but prayerfully asked Him to wait.
It is remarkable that knowledge of the ovulation cycle has only come in the last 150 years and the methods of determining the fertile time are improving by leaps and bounds.
Even as I write millions of pounds/dollars are going into fertility apps and hormonal dipsticks.
The damage done by contraception is rebounding on the mother the father the children boys as well as girls and their own children will eventually suffer.
As Zohar said ‘Honour your Father and your Mother even as you honour God for all three were present at your conception.’
Dr Olive, thank you for this. Meaningful to me because I was married in 1956. We were instructed in the Safe Period by the doyen at the time — Professor Ryan. It went so well that I published an article in the Clergy Review. I suggested that the method contributed to the strength of marital sexuality. Of course we accepted the possibility that a pregnancy might occur. Yes, people like yourself were working hard to increase its reliability — for instance the measurement of body temperature.
But the case we are discussing is of a different order. In those days, getting it wrong would bring about various threatening inconveniences. But in this case the inconvenience would be the death of the mother. Others would say that solving the problem through removing a tube, which cannot now ever be used, is just commonsense.
In 1950, any priest worth his salt would have said that avoiding conception, by any means, was contrary to the divine plan since the purpose of marriage was procreation. Spacing a family by total abstention might have be grudgingly accepted.
Sadly, we live in a contraceptive culture and even NFP is promoted as a form of contraception. Having a large family is now seen as a sign of ignorance by the poor or self-indulgence by the wealthy.
The difficulty of the couple on which our discussion is based is an extreme one but our culture is now firmly biased against the begetting and rearing of children.
Earlier today I was considering my own life and found myself looking up casuistry in the dictionary!
So, I’m open to the possibility that this might be what I am doing in the following argument.
It is not sinful for couples who are naturally unable to have children to engage in sexual intercourse as the church recognises that sex is ordered to both the procreation of children and the mutual good of the couple.
I fully accept the teaching on sterilisation but even if to undergo sterilisation is sinful, it is a single act for which sinner can seek forgiveness. Surely, sterilisation does not render subsequent sexual acts sinful.
I’ve just watched the film “The Two Popes” and think a Franciscan view would have difficulty even calling sterilisation under these conditions mortally sinful.
If I remember correctly, under the pre Vatican II moral code, the couple had no right to abstain since the primary aim of marriage was the procreation of children.
milliganp writes:
// I’ve just watched the film “The Two Popes” and think a Franciscan view would have difficulty even calling sterilisation under these conditions mortally sinful. //
I’m not sure how to understand that sentence. Did something in or about the puppet show (I’ve come to think of fictional presentations in the cinema as puppet shows, because I’ve noticed a curious tendency on the part of even intelligent people to become involved in them to the extent that they seem to believe that in watching them they’ve witnessed real life events or that what they’ve seen there is indisputably true) remind you of something you already knew about the Franciscan order, or did the film “teach” you that something?
I apologize for the awkward syntax of that sentence, but I’ll let it go uncorrected to save me the time it would take to rewrite it. Practicing exercising patience might be a good New Year’s resolution.
The whole, simple point I’m trying to get to is that I think it’s a very good idea to try to resist that apparently all too human tendency to believe that fictional cinema is something more than a puppet show. It’s not. In fact, it’s often propaganda, sometimes blatant, but often subtle and insidious.
Just to correct your misconception, I am aware of the fictional nature of the film’s narrative, but it was based on public statements by the two characters portrayed in the drama. By Franciscan, I was not referring to the religious order but adjectivally to the sayings of Pope Francis.
I presume the construction of the drama is entirely fictional but, in reality, Pope Benedict must have realised the high probability of the then Cardinal Bergoglio being elected as his successor.
Quentin writes:
// Others would say that solving the problem through removing a tube, which cannot now ever be used, is just commonsense. //
I know almost nothing about the medical complexities involved, but for the moment I’ll assume that you’re referring to something significantly more drastic than what I’ve heard referred to as a tubal ligation. Is this done to the male or to the female? Who gets snipped, the giver or the receiver? If it’s the latter, I don’t see that even the Church can object, but if it’s the former, there’s clearly a problem.
I just re-read Quentin’s introduction. I think the snipped tubes he refers to in his reply to Dr. Duddy must be the woman’s. How could the Church possibly object to that? The argument that it would protect her in all possible situations – not only in the confines of the marriage – must, surely, prevail. To prohibit it would surely be cruel.
My personal inclination in the example Quentin gives would be towards the primacy of conscience and the proportionalism which is pretty evident in the catechism, the couple had evidently given considerable thought to the matter. God does not, in my understanding, regard his children as automatons but regards the individual heart pretty closely.
I had a similar kind of case to this a few weeks ago. An inmate of my prison asked me if he would go to hell because he didn’t want – and so probably wasn’t going to have, an operation for his throat cancer. His line of thinking was that in refusing the operation he would be committing suicide and therefore hell bound. Like Quentin I didn’t take sides but did go through the issues I mulled the matter over with my excellent Parish Priest who decided that this was the sort of case where Moral theology alone was not sufficient judge for the existential issue facing the inmate…..any thoughts on this one while we are at it?
ignatius writes:
// An inmate of my prison asked me if he would go to hell because he didn’t want – and so probably wasn’t going to have, an operation for his throat cancer. His line of thinking was that in refusing the operation he would be committing suicide and therefore hell bound. … I mulled the matter over with my excellent Parish Priest who decided that this was the sort of case where Moral theology alone was not sufficient judge for the existential issue facing the inmate //
That’s overthinking it, ignatius. Overthinking is a sin of this chatterbox age. How in God’s name can anyone have a moral obligation to prolong his agony by letting the medical machine drag him through its torture chamber? Geesh.
Happy New Year!
David Smith & Ignatius
Presenting the facts such as throat cancer that Ignatius outlined, life-threatening and serious. Surgeons are only too keen to cut it out. Depending on the health of the person otherwise, the anaesthetist might not let the operation go ahead.
People, suddenly faced with such a life-threatening diagnosis, would naturally feel scared, and may jump at the opportunity to save their life, others may well be resigned to the inevitable and say no.
Difficult the circumstances the patient is in, just let me say on the issue of morality. Morality has never worked. Helping one to come to faith, or encourage faith if they have it would be the best we can do unless God intervenes, but with sensitivity, one must leave the decision to the patient.
Happy New Year to you both.
Hi David,
Of course. In the case of my example I gave similarly considered thought to the conversations I had. Also that an operation of the kind proposed will be of high risk in its own right and may not affect the outcome of the disease. Basically that the choice of yes/no in this case would be a free one. So I’m not personally overthinking the matter. But the underlying aspects of how decisions are arrived at are definitely worth pondering at length.. because if I can get to the bottom of the thing then what I will find is what “I” actually believe!
Once we discover what WE really believe then we are in a better position to ask if OUR belief is askew .. to pray though, read up on and discuss with those who’s integrity and wisdom we trust. I find that in considering these issues as fully as possible there comes slow growth in wisdom and humility. As Dr Olive presents, there are absolutes and we need to learn how to weigh our own reactions to them particularly if we are asked for judgement on a subject.
Nektarios writes:
// David Smith & Ignatius
…
Happy New Year to you both. //
Thank you, Nektarios. A Happy New Year to you, too.
Paul Milligan makes an interesting point; sterilization might be sinful but it is a one-off sin which can in due course be repented of and forgiven. Macbeth, when contemplating the murder of Duncan, is thinking along similar lines.
‘ that but this blow/Might be the be-all and the end-all here,/But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,/We’d jump the life to come. ‘
I don’t think the argument that some bishops at the time of Humanae Vitae told people they must follow their conscience even if it makes them act contrary to Church doctrine is a strong one. Newman, probably the greatest theologian of conscience in modern times, would have repudiated it in no uncertain terms.
Where does this leave us? it’s a classic example of hard cases making bad law. There’s no real dilemma here, as there would be, for instance, in the choice to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother. The common-sense answer, to sterilize the woman on medical grounds, can be adopted without the Church having to embrace, as a matter of principle, proportionality or situational ethics, whatever the personal preferences of Francis and his protégé and crony ‘Tucho’ Fernandez.
Thank you for you contribution to the situation.No operation is without risks. To sterilise her by snipping the Fallopian tubes so that he or they can continue having sexual intercourse at all times is an unnecessary procedure. There is a risk to the life of the woman. The anaesthetic itself may lead to her death.or she may haemorrhage. Also, sterilisation is not 100% certain. They still may become pregnant as she may have more than one set of tubes or the tube may reconnect. It has been known.
The only way for them not to become pregnant is not to have intercourse at the time of ovulation. Huge studies of thousands of couples have proved that pregnancy then starts in 0.04% of couples and is much better rate than sterilisation.
The female egg, ovum lives for only 24 hours and can be fertilised in only 12 hours. The sperm can live for up to 8 days. Fertility apps can now help the couple find the fertile time with certainty and no health risk.
At the time of Humanae Vitae in 1968 the knowledge of fertility was far behind what is known now.
The World Health Organisation accepted the efficiency of Natural Methods and defined it in 1988. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published NICE Guidelines for the use of natural methods several years ago but they still promote other methods family regulation.
I hope the Church catches up soon.
This seems to be a tricky topic, involving as it does the detailed workings of the practice of human sexuality. I imagine those of us who are not fully desensitized to the new world of sexual frankness, in which sexuality has become a topic of daily conversation scarcely different from all other topics, like grocery shopping or cleaning the furniture, are hesitant to probe publicly into what we still feel to be a delicate and intimate issue. Both Quentin and Doctor Duddy have been good enough to provide a few talking points, but if we’re to explore this more fully, it may help if they would offer us a little more guidance. I, for one, at least, would be grateful.
Dear David
Thank you for this. I’m sorry to comment so late.
I had already started to think of the possibility of asking if any regulars might like to contribute posts. Your example of Doctor Duddy is just the sort of thing I mean. Leave me to think more about this. I must work out the necessary routines.
Happy New Year!
Quentin
Quentin de la Bedoyere
10 Edge Hill
London SW19 4LP
+44(0)2089467166
quentin@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.secondsightblog.net
As in my previous offering, I repeat that God is the Creator. The first page of Genesis describes how he created a man and a woman and blessed them. When a man and woman get married in front of the Altar with the Priest as witness , they are asking for that blessing of God. That is what Saint Pope John Paul ll called the primordial Sacrament of Marriage. Sadly, the theologians argued for centuries as to whether Marriage was indeed a Sacrament and it took until the Council of Trent to finally make the declaration. However in Biblical times,marriage carried on as God intended, but adapted to local norms. The Fathers of the boy and girl would negotiate the price of the bride price,the Mohar, as her family were losing a valuable working asset. She would be asked if she agreed, sometimes it was just a matter of form, and the time of betrothal would commence. Later the boy would go and claim the girl and give her gifts, the Mattan. These gifts have now persevered as the engagement ring and the wedding ring.
But God’s intention for the marriage is still the same. He wants the couple He blessed to multiply
and He gave them the gift of sexuality.
The gift used within the blessed state is abounded with God’s help..graces. But used outside God’s blessing leads to untold misery and chaos.
My Primary School Teacher explained the catechism question ‘Who made you?’ ‘God made me.’ by saying that God in heaven wanted someone to love so he created you. God loves us infinitely and we should love Him.
And He does. and so we try.
Olive Duddy writes:
// But God’s intention for the marriage is still the same. He wants the couple He blessed to multiply and He gave them the gift of sexuality. //
So if, as in Quentin’s hypothetical example, the couple cannot have children, the next best thing might be for them to adopt abandoned children. And if the reason for the couple’s sterility is that if the woman should conceive she would almost surely lose both the child and her life, I don’t see how the Church could morally object to her surgical sterilization, even taking into account the risk involved in the surgery, because otherwise she would be at risk of an unintentional pregnancy (rape, miscalculation, lapse in self-discipline), which would leave the adopted children without a mother. That’s a little convoluted, but, I think, not excessively.
Thank you David for raising two further issues. Although Dr Olive Duddy quotes an efficacy rate for NFP of 0.04%, the NHS site says up to 25% of couples practising NFP conceive each year because, I presume, they miscalculate or have a “lapse in self-discipline”.
On the option of adoption, sadly the ready option of abortion means that few babies are available for adoption and getting approved for adoption is notoriously fickle. My daughter and her husband went through a lengthy process of approval only to be told they were the “wrong type of mixed heritage (race)”. They eventually went the route of IVF, which is also contrary to Catholic moral theology.
I am sorry that your Daughter was the victim of this discrimination.
Regarding the efficiency figure of 25% that you quote from the NHS site, does not say which method of Natural Family that was being reported upon. The British Medical Journal July 2019 published a paper by Urrutia and Polis from Maryland University and North Carolina comparing the efficiency of different methods.Yes indeed there is a method with 25% failure but it is Withdrawal. The Sympto-thermal Method which uses 2 signs to discern the beginning of the woman’s fertile time and 2 signs to discern the end of the fertile time is given a 99.96% effective.
Sadly it is this type of misquotation that is far too prevalent that has perpetuated the excuse that NFP does not work.
Well taught and with good motivation, NFP is good for the woman, good for the couple and good for the children.
I am happy to provide copies of the BMJ article and the 2007 article from Human Reproduction which reported on the cycles of 900 couples who charted 17,638 cycles. for the professors at Heidelberg University.
Olive Duddy writes:
// Sadly it is this type of misquotation that is far too prevalent that has perpetuated the excuse that NFP does not work. //
The mass media have become the daily tutor to the Western world, and a very poor teacher they are. They offer to the mind a constant diet of both novelties and simple certainties. We need certainties to survive and to keep us in balance and we crave novelty.
A thought. In using natural family planning, it seems to me that a couple’s experience of mutual sexual pleasure might come to lack spontaneity. Because of the necessity of restricting any activity that might lead to intercourse to a small open window of time, demonstration of physical attraction must for them come to resemble a scheduled entertainment event, for which they must reserve time on their calendars. I can have no direct experience of how a woman thinks of and feels about intercourse, of course, but I imagine that most men would find that restriction emotionally unsatisfying.
What Was the Leading Cause of Death Worldwide in 2019?, It killed 42 million people. Have a guess.
The answer is abortion. See: https://www.lifenews.com/2019/12/31/abortion-was-the-leading-cause-of-death-worldwide-in-2019-killing-42-million-people/
I made the sad mistake of clicking through the lifenews site. In the USA 32% of deaths are abortion but this figure rises to >60% for black and Hispanic races! I have a grandson who died 20 mins after birth and I still think of him most times I think of my family. How can humanity tolerate such loss. As a young man I would express dismay with the words “Jesus wept!” – perhaps I should invoke Mary.
Somewhat like my wife. Alone in the house, she managed to baptise her miscarried baby. She always looked forward to meeting her child again. Now they are together. I have a theory that at her Judgment before the Throne, she lifted up her baby, and said “This is what I gave you.”
On Jan 2 David said
“The mass media have become the daily tutor to the Western world, and a very poor teacher they are. They offer to the mind a constant diet of both novelties and simple certainties. We need certainties to survive and to keep us in balance and we crave novelty”.
That is a very good quote and worthy of discussion. I have a good friend who teaches Modern Studies at secondary school level who might find that a useful springboard for a class discussion or essay.
Having been away for a while I have just caught up with the blog. It’s a bit of a side issue, but may I pick up on Ignatius’s case of the prisoner who wanted to refuse medical treatment for a condition which would otherwise prove terminal, and wanted to know whether such refusal would constitute suicide. “Letting nature take its course” cannot be suicide, can it?
This concerns me also Iona. I have heard it said that normal medical procedures should be followed, but it is often difficult to know what is normal especially in our very technical age and in the developed world. Letting nature take its course could mean not intervening too much with severely handicapped babies for instance and letting them die, or not resuscitating a person who is severely ill or who has had a serious accident, as well as refusing painful and invasive treatment for cancer. Should we spend so much on medecines and procedures keeping ourselves alive when so many others across the world cannot afford even basic health care. Life expectancy in some countries is still under 50. Concentrating on the pain involved is not the only factor. That might take care of some part of the purification of Purgatory.
Martha writes:
// I have heard it said that normal medical procedures should be followed, but it is often difficult to know what is normal especially in our very technical age and in the developed world. //
I see a possible problem with using “normal medical procedures should be followed” as a guide. Since only medical professionals and courts are widely considered competent to determine what “normal medical procedures” means, it strongly suggests that one has an obligation (“should”) to defer to medical and judicial advice and decisions, putting aside the inclinations of one’s own heart, mind, and conscience.
Iona writes:
// “Letting nature take its course” cannot be suicide, can it? //
I’d think not, but this was the concern of a prisoner. Prisoners live in a system in which rules *must* be followed, on pain of penalty. I imagine that there may be an inclination among many or most prisoners to think of all important decisions that way: What would the warden or the chaplain say?
Also, I wonder whether in countries whose governments provide medical treatment without charge there may not develop a perhaps misguided sense of gratitude and obligation on the part of patients to the medical system as a whole that inclines many or most to let the doctors do whatever they want. Half-baked musing :o)
David, Martha, Iona
In British prisons normal rules apply, treatment is offered but remains as individual choice,to have it otherwise would clearly set a very dangerous precedent. In chaplaincy we adhere to the principle of individual choice.
That is what I would expect, Ignatius. It is the principles guiding anyone’s decision in cases like this which are so difficult and involve so many different aspects.
Alasdair says:
January 5, 2020 at 2:00 pm
On Jan 2 David said
“The mass media have become the daily tutor to the Western world, and a very poor teacher they are.”
And the ‘norms’ are becoming the propaganda put out by them. Who controls that output i wonder? (Check out the involvement of the CIA within ain stream ‘news organisations’. …. Mass social manipulation is NOT myth or ‘fake news’.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that there needs to be a conspiracy. What benefit is there to the CIA (or other source) of widespread sexual licence – Gay Rights, Abortion on demand, the destruction of marriage and massive reduction in western childbirth – such that Europe will be Muslim within a couple of generations? I’m afraid to awaken Nektarios as he will tell us it’s all George Soros and the Chi-communists.
.The benefit for individuals who conspire together against other’s freedom? For personal gain of course. ……. ‘personal importance’ – i’m with the in crowd, lucrative life – they pay me well, power over others – i’m better than the low life. And, of course, moving up the ladder to rub shoulders with the ‘elite’ & be a player in the programme. At whatever level. …. All pointless reasons in the end of course. But real motives non the less.
The more morally lax a.n. other can make society, sexually or otherwise, the easier it is to cause conflicts amongst the populace. So enabling the imposition of ‘controls’ under the pretext of ‘for the social good’ or ‘national security’. Which enables (and is happening) the manipulation of laws, & oppression of one sort or another to justify ‘my’ power and control.
Not to mention warmongering for personal benefit. (Divide & conquer).
Megalomania, exists among many, in all levels of society, and needs no conspiracy to set the ball rolling. We have our ‘illustrious leaders’ setting the example.
The reality & consequences of the above are increasing & becoming a stark reality all over the world. In every level of society.
As long as you give the majority ‘bread & circuses’ it will be acceptable to the majority. That along with propaganda is enough.
Everyone with any concern for the ‘social good’ should reread ‘1984’ ‘Brave New World’ and apply the sentiments expressed to the social reality our ‘illustrious leaders’, their sycophants and those who are ‘only obeying orders’, are producing today.