secondsightblogdotnet

So the debate about the attitude of the bishops concerning the American President and his prohibition to receive the Eucharist continues. (find a lengthy link to the elements of this below) And I don’t care because the important question for me is whether I believe abortion in itself to be a terrible sin, or not. On my Day of Judgment (perhaps not long off) the Almighty will be measuring my own judgments, and practices, of good and evil — that is loving God and loving my neightbour — nothing else.

The question of abortion is a question of created human nature. Do I believe that that neither I, or anyone else, has the right to kill an innocent human being? My answer to that is that I do not believe that I have such a right. But that leads to a second question: is a baby in the womb a human being?

The basic facts are clear. There is no human being before the male and female elements are joined, through conception, into one element — the ultimate genes are unique in their pattern. At that moment you and I have our own patterns, and our own identities. Over the days, months and years, the characteristics of our genetic elements develop through time and experience. This process continues after birth, and right through our lives. For example, we assume a capacity for broad reason about 7 years old, and a capacity for adult decisions at 18 or 21. At no point could we claim that we suddenly become human beings — because we are human beings ab initio.

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/19/22541270/biden-abortion-communion-catholic-bishops

We live in a world which provides more and more electronic devices which apparently assist us not only in finding information which would otherwise be diffcult to discover, but also to effect appropriate action.

Some decades ago (and back to the 1940s) the Church in Marbella (southern Spain) maintained a list of potential sins (in Spanish and English) which tourists could read and confess, and which priests could read, ask questions, and give absolution. I think it was an excellent idea and, perhaps, it still exists.

But I would suggest that a similar arrangement could be used for Confession nowadays, effectively anywhere, and in any language. Using the telephone or, more comprehensively, through the Internet, the program would identify our sins, and require appropriate details, plus the frequency since the last Confession. The priest could then set out penances and give absolution. The ‘confessors’ would of course need the proper sorrow for their sins, and the proper intention to do better.

I understand that, currently, the Church would not accept the true presence of the priest under such an arrangement. But of course this is illogical. If I speak to you on the telephone we are both in each other’s presence. Why should we not use mechanisms to achieve the same thing? And of course it would be possible to use Zoom (although I have little knowledge of how it works.) 

The advantage would be considerable. The rate of Confession has dropped substantially in many areas. What’s it like in your own parish? ‘Computer Confession’ would, I believe, encourage its frequency. I would be happy to use it once a week. And need it!

How about you?

Regular readers of this Blog will have noticed that I am definitely well aged. I was 73 when it started, and I am now 86. An old man. I am fortunate that, apart from difficulties of memory, I still seem to be fit. Moreover, I have children in the neighborhood and so, even in this difficult time, I am looked after exellently well. How long will this last? Two years? Five years? Ten years? All my children will have retired — and, indeed, being helped themselves by my fourteen grandchildren. To say nothing of a growing group of great grandchildren.

And so I am interested in the current political question of allowing the old, and perhaps sick, to take their own lives. Or, indeed, to materially assist such a person. (see the link below to a summary of the law). Some opponents of this change point out that, in the original debate on the legalisation of abortion, it was argued that it would only be in a few serious cases. The current rate of abortion for England and Wales is about 200,000, under the seven grounds permitted. (link below)

While I am confident that that my family will be faithful in their care right up to my natural death, I fear that I will feel guilty at taking so much, and, by then, contributing so little. How would you feel?

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf

Are you ‘woke’? I ask because I recently had a little investigation into the meaning of the word. As far as I can make it out it means not making judgments of individuals on the grounds of their shared characteristics or backgrounds. The most immediate example appears to be racial colour. Thus any pejorative judgment of, say, a negro would be ‘unwoke’.

In the UK, English accent is important. Not long ago the ‘public school’ accent was the ideal. But wokeness is making a change. I notice that, increasingly, the BBC requires experts to be working class or have local accents. I recall Wifred Pickles, in the late ’40’s, readng the News. Pickles was a Northen comedian by trade. I found that I had to check his information by also listening to the same information read in a ‘BBC’ accent at the next news, in order to be sure.

When I first went out into the world my mother warned me against marrying anyone in the Royal Family on the grounds that they were jolly-come-lately, despicable Germans (she was a member of a pre-Conquest family). She was even concerned about her own marriage since my father’s family was unknown before the fifteenth century.

We tend also to hold views on nationalities — such as the Scots and the Welsh. And even different localities in the country. Are you Cornish or Mancunian? German, French, American?

Certainly we have views and judgments on gender. I think my late wife must have been almost the last to vow her obedience to me at our marriage. And she honoured that throughout her life. However, through incomprehensible ways, she usually got her own wishes.

And of course there are other characteristics, established through surveys. For instance, people who wear spectacles are judged to be more intelligent, and taller men are more likely to be chosen for senior positions.

How irrational!

But is it? Back to our old friend: evolution. Early homo sapiens and, indeed their predecessors, lived in a very dangerous world. It was necessary to be aware of other groups who might well be a threat. So they would have developed a range of clues to establish whether stranger groups were safe. They may often have not been accurate, but their usage would have given at least an element of security. So they continued to breed and, over the centuries, became more accurate. We have simply inherited the skill to measure the safety of others by recognizing the broad characteristics distinguishing between the harmless groups and the dangerous. Ironically, lower animals and breeds of insects operate in the same way. For example, dolphins have been found to favour other dolphins who help their fellows in danger, and hold a grudge against those who don’t.*

*Telegraph 23/4/2021. Report & leader.

Idly today, sitting on the loo, I picked up my late wife’s King James’ bible. When I first met her she was moving from the C of E, in the direction of Rome. Of course the translation is wonderful — it may not be as accurate as the modern versions, but it’s a great deal more beautiful. Years ago, I even wrote a little verse about it:

I doubt if King James wrote it,
But the one who did
Knew the force of short, brute words;
And did not, if there were no clear need,
Write polysyllabically.

And I was reading the first few chapters of Genesis. We all know the story of Creation and Adam and Eve, followed of course by the Fall of Man — into which we were born, and cannot be saved without Baptism. How odd of God, we may think: if he creates a human race damaged by nature to fail.

But such creation myths are common in ancient religions. They give a basis for sanctity, for understanding, for objectives, for rules. We may think it odd that the Church, and, I presume, Judaism blesses and guarantees the account. But we have no reason to believe that Adam, and  Eve ever existed. Nor, indeed, the Garden of Eden and its baleful tree. It’s a story, not a history.

In fact, the experts have followed the development of our ancestors over thousands of years and in many places. We must presume that the gradual development of the brain enabled a better facility of genetic success, and so we find ourselves as the ultimate example.

Nevertheless, its fundamental message is clear, We, at least, have developed morality: the capacity to make moral choices. (We may not in fact, be the first to be so: for instance there are pre homo sapiens as far back as 300,000 years, who  honoured their dead* — thus suggesting a recognition of human sacredness or at least immortality. Are these ancestors in Heaven, or in some kind of Limbo?)

But others might argue that what we call spirituality is simply an outcome of genetics. Those ancient humans who happened to have good relations with their fellows, and benefited from developing their own skills, would be likely to have passed on the characteristics of loving self and loving neighbours to a larger number of similarly successful offspring.

And, as I feel sceptical today, there are problems with the question of God. Of course we are sure that he created the Universe, someone must have done so. But when? Difficult to answer because time didn’t exist before he created it. So when did he do it? Nobel Prize for the right answer. How do we answer those who claim that the concept of God is merely a human rationalisation? Of course there are different rational claims to explain the existence of God, but no one of them actually works. We simply choose to believe in God.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Religion_and_spirituality

So, a fuss in the newspapers last week — on the Catholic rights and wrongs of homosexual practice. There appears to be an assumption that Pope Francis had changed the rules when, in 2013, he said of a homosexual man “Who am I to judge?”. I gather that some bishops have allowed blessings of such partnerships. This of course is a mistake: the Pope was talking about the private conscience of this homosexual, not the objective morality of the activity.

The Church’s long term rule on homosexuality is based on the Natural Law. And this approach is fundamental to several of the Ten Commandments. Quite simply: the male and female sexual organs are clearly structured for bisexual activity. Similarly, the argument versus artificial contraception is based through the same principle.

There is history behind this.  A  form of philosophy developed in ancient Greece was called Stoicism. The name relates to a building in the marketplace of Athens. It was later taken up by the Romans (think Cicero), and significant in the early Church. Put simply, it taught that we should obey the principles of nature in all our activities. The enemy of Stoicim was feelings, passions and so on. These human rexponses were always a danger to the rationality of Stoicism. Nowadays the term is often used as a criticism: a tendency to hold on to our decisions rather than to be flexible and human.

Personally, I have alwatys been drawn towards Stoicism. But I am not prepared to condemn feelings and passions. What is necessary, I claim, is to distinguish between the feelings which support reasoning and those which lead us to irrational decisions.

As a plain example, think of marital bereavement.  Yes, the feelings are strong. But I argue that they are rational because passion is proper, and usually necessary in marriage. But, if the strength of feelings prevents the survivor from taking the necessary actions brought on by bereavement, damage will be done. 

So, back to Pope Francis. Here, we should take into account that the condemnation of homoxual relationships was initially based on the assumption that human beings, and their natural characteristics, were created directly by God. Ergo, homosexual behaviour was out. But now we know that the physicality of homo sapiens was a product of  evolution. We may still judge that homosexual behaviours are damaging to society and so should be condemned.Other might argue that accepting homosexuality, including ‘marriages’, leads to a more peaceful society and reduces the dangers to health which develop from casual homosexual activity.

My conclusions here are similar to the views of good Catholics who argue that the use of contraceptives is permissible, and in certain circumstances obligatory. The levels of fertility in modern women were developed through evolution when the high mortality of the young required the conception of enough children to replace mortalities. The Stoic argument might be that we have inherited brains which are capable of matching new circumstances, and so we can (must?) alter our behaviour to fit the new situation. I am of course aware that contraception leads to other important changes, but not necessarily good ones, in our society.

I have been reading a recent study of senior students who are vulnerable to stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. But they are by no means alone. In current times we are all faced by a cluster of new, and often difficult, problems. And we may discover that our anxieties, far from helping us, actually reduce our competence. I certainly find this to be so.

The study provides evidence that the students were very much helped by formal meditation which has been shown to be an “effective and cheap way for universities to help students deal with stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.”

I recalled the occasion, some years ago, when a lady lodger in my house became truly upset. I can’t now remember the cause but I do remember the healing.

I asked her to lie down on a sofa in my study. I instructed her to tense her muscles as tightly as possible, and then to relax them — while consciously noticing the procession of relaxation.  Eyes, mouth, neck, shoulders, arms, hands, lungs (top, middle, bottom), waterworks area, thighs, calves, feet. By the end she was quite calm. We watched a TV program together — and off she happily went.

I knew how to do this because I aim to set aside ten minutes every evening, before going to bed. As you would imagine, this regular relaxation exercise became more and more effective. Nowadays, when a concern arises, I do a swift relaxation from head to toe, and then I can cope.

But my current skills were not immediate: I had to practice this formal relaxation for a week or ten days to reach the full extension. Not long ago I was feeling quite tense on an occasion with my dentist. But just clenching then relaxing my hands was sufficient to cope with my fear.

This approach to our mental feelings and responses finds its place in the discipline of cognitive behavioral therapy CBT. Over recent years the development of this area of therapy has bcome increasingly important. I am certainly no expert, but I am fortunate in having a daughter and a grandaughter who are professionals.

But my first action was much earlier on. We had a baby in the next room who had the habit of crying when she woke up. It was very tiring. I told her that when she cried her Teddy Bear would disappear. If she didn’t cry Teddy would always be there to look after her. It took just two nights — and the crying stopped. And we slept. That was CBT in action.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cognitive-behavioural-therapy-cbt/

“The story of births in England and Wales in 2019 is one of decreases and record lows, with the total number of births continuing the fall we’ve seen in recent years. Wales had the lowest fertility rate since our records began and England’s is nearing its record low.” (Office for National Statistics, 2019)

From time to time on this Blog we look at this (literally) vital issue. But we are not alone. Virtually, every international state in recent years shows a drop in the rate of births per women of fertile age. Bearing in mind that we need 2.1 births per women of fertile age to replace population, the current UK rate is about 1.7. (The extra 0.1 allows for infant mortality.)

Does this matter? We can argue the advantages of a reduction in population and, at first sight, a relatively small reduction may be valuable. But the change has its dangers: it leads to a higher proportion of older people, and a smaller proportion of workers. An extreme example is Japan where the proportion of over-65s is around 30% and continuing to rise. It has become a serious problem. It is likely to affect many other countries in the future. Including us.

If we consider natural law we may understand the importance of morality. This has been the basis of moral law in Catholicism. The Ten Commandments illustrate this. These assume that human beings are created as social animals. “Thou shall not steal” or “Thou shalt not bear false witness” are simple examples. Society cannot flourish in their absence. Such rules were originally accepted on the assumption that human beings were directly created by God. They could not take into account the concept of evolution. Thus, for instance, homosexual activity flew in the face of God-created biology. Nowadays we have to allow for our understanding that homosexuals cannot be automatically recognised as immoral and wicked. However, giving the term ‘marriage. to homosexuals in permanent relationship is, in my mind, questionable. Should not ‘marriage’ be confined to couple who can, at least in principle, produce their own children?

Similarly, the whole issue of artificial contraception cannot be discussed simply in biological terms. In primitive times, child conceptions needed to be high because of infant death. That is no longer the case. Does that require a review of the rules? Such a review would also need to consider the other, sometimes questionable, effects of artificially controlling conception. There are many. I speak as someone with twenty seven descendants already. Fortunately, no serious problems so far.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2019

Yes, I think I must say something. The USA have a new President. Good news by comparison with his predecessor. And many of us would think how marvellous to have a Catholic president. And a public one too, with a life of devotion.

But I am not one of the many because he is clearly claiming to support the provision of killing babies in the womb. I could understand him saying that, in the light of his almost unbelievable predecessor, he would regrettably not interfere with the laws of the different States in the matter of abortion, despite his moral condemnation. I am talking about plain evil.

This is not simply disobedience to the teaching of the Catholic Church (don’t take a hoot about that!) but it is the intrinsic evil of abortion. Let me tell you a story.  My wife was carrying our fifth child in her womb, at ten weeks. I had taken the other children up to the Common for exercise. She miscarried. Notwithstanding her distress, physical and mental, she picked up her child and baptised him or her. And, throughout the rest of her life, she looked forward to meeting her child in Heaven – where she is at last now.

If you think that human beings are simply the outcome of evolution – and so can be dealt with in the same way as any animal life you may agree with Joe Biden. But if you believe that human beings are created by the Almighty to, eventually, be in Heaven, you will not. Of course, there is the question of at what point does humanity start. It seems clear to me that this occurs at conception when the two genetic elements come together – and start the process of development. A process, in my case, which continues into the eighth decade. Those genes have expressed and modified our individual development to the very moment that you are reading this, and I am writing it

I have mentioned before that my late wife and I spent a number of years in the past as marriage counsellors. Today I want to look at whether my experiences taught me about the important factors in any long term relationships. So, I would have in mind children, parents, long term friends, work colleagues etc. etc.

We had started by working with engaged couples. Many of these had been sent by parish priests – often because the prospective marriage would be one of different religious beliefs. The meetings were a combination of information and group discussion. But there was one couple whose problems required a personal discussion with us.

It really didn’t work. That was because my wife and I approached the issues differently. We were somewhat distressed about this but it led to us getting professional training in direct counselling from the, then, Catholic Marriage Advisory Council.

Where would the clients come from? My wife came up with the idea of offering our assistance to the local parish priests. It worked extremely well. Perhaps too well because the PPs tended to send anyone with any psychological problem. That often led us to be hand in hand with the experts at the local mental hospital. And we were learning a great deal.

One PP told me that I had to keep my guidance to that of the current Pope. I was unable to promise this — he sent me no parishioners.

Where marriages were involved, we discovered that one factor was very common: the ability to listen to one another. There is a fundamental difference between hearing one another and listening to one another. Listening requires taking in the feelings as well as the facts – demonstrating our understanding and feeding it back to the speaker.

So much of our counselling time was spent teaching the clients how to listen. Then, many problems solve themselves. But this is by no means an assistance only to married people. Our relationships involve our friends, our parents, our children, our work colleagues, our bosses and so on. We have become listeners and so, indirectly, of service to all our “neighbours”. And, as I remember, God is rather keen that we should love our neighbours. And that includes us. How do we really feel? The deep understanding of our own feelings is the first movement towards understanding our own decisions and our own temperaments.