"What is the value that we give to human life in its first beginnings. Now clearly it's not the same as we would give to another adult sitting next to me."I agree with John that this needs to be corrected and clarified since we do not give a higher value or a lower value to human life on the basis of age, whether before or after birth. John has quite rightly quoted the relevant passages from Donum Vitae and Evangelium Vitae.
It is fair to say that Archbishop Nichols was put under pressure during the programme on BBc 4's World at One yesterday. Most of the time was given to a "catholic" doctor who made a passionate case for a saviour sibling for his own child. After an extensive and entirely unopposed presentation, the Archbishop was immediately dumped right into the mire;
"Very moving to hear that testimony. Does it make you want to think again, make you rethink the argument?"This is the ultimate "dirty trick" of the media, so refined in Britain. Tearful "testimony" then zip straight in with "Right, you swine with your dogmatic, abstract principles, what do you make of that, eh"!?
Archbishop Nichols was keen to emphasise our compassion for hard cases and to avoid any appearance of a lack of charity. I can understand that. He was confronted by the interviewer with the utterly partisan dilemma between "abstract moral and religious arguments" as opposed to the child who "faces death by a thousand knives." He was hectored and interrupted repeatedly, (unlike the doctor advocating "saviour siblings.") He was confronted by the question "...aren't you putting obstacles in the way of families like that?"
As I said, I do agree with John Smeaton that the Archbishop's distinction between the value of human life at different stages needs to be repudiated - and, I hope, formally corrected. At the same time, we should see this outrageously partisan BBC coverage for what it is: an attempt to influence the debate in Parliament rather than simply report it. This was not a question of different people making different things of the same coverage as Mark Thompson claimed in Westminster Cathedral last month (Apologia pro BBC sua). This was the liberal consensus in the BBC doing its best to support their secularist friends in Parliament at the very moment of a crucial debate.
17 comments:
Not surprising.
You should study the sex-ed materials that are used in his catholic schools - disgraceful.
Dominie
Fr., I couldn't agree more!I heard most of this broadcast while travelling in the car,
it was quite clear that the Archbishop was under pressure and, I felt, not given enough time to respond more fully.That said, I think the "problematic words " were something of a blunder, coming as they did, from a relatively 'media-savvy' Archbishop, trying as he was, to show compassion and charity.The impression that Archbishop Nicholls gave seemed to be that the Catholic Church would 'look the other way' with regard to the decisions of individual parents re saviour siblings etc.Whilst nobody would advocate piling further pressure on parents who are already hard-pressed, it's not charitable to simply tell parents to rely on their own consciences, without at least some explanation of the Church's teaching and the reasons for it.Such parents are always going to be vulnerable to the utilitarianism which pervades this (and other ) areas of medical research, as they seek solutions.
Front runner for the E & W red hat no less.
Really we should have nothing to do with the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation, you cannot expect to get fair treatment from such people they have been anti-Christian for as long as I can remember.
Fr Tim
I posted at Catholic Commentary after hearing the "World at One" - a response to the anonymous doctor's presentation. However, it took me about half an hour before I had worked out what I thought could have been said in response ... and Archbishop Nichols had just seconds. I think it would have taken quite exceptional media skills to successfully cope with the situation in which Archbishop Nichols found himself.
(sorry if you already received this..)
Father, I know how you feel about the BBC but as a former BBC editor, and having just listened to the WA0 item, I'm afraid I do not agree entirely with your analysis. True, the Archbishop was challenged but we have to expect this. Very sadly, the Church's moral standpoint is now at variance with the prevailing "moral" view of middle Britain. In the recent past, this wasn't so. The Church must get used again, to being in opposition. It cannot expect an easy ride. What did Christ say about the vilification we should expect to suffer in His name? On a technical point, the Archbishop was interviewed live; the doctor was pre-recorded. As any programme producer will tell you, the person being interviewed live, especially if interviewed second, as in this case, can often have a distinct advantage. His comments cannot be edited. He is free to get his views across, however controversial they might be and to put the record straight, while the pre-recorded person, on the other hand, has no possibility of immediate reply. The BBC is not responsible for the words spoken by the Archbishop, or any other interviewee. Archbishop Nichols is also a man highly experienced in dealing with the media, who has admirably put the Church's case many times. I didn't consider the interviewer in this case was unduly aggressive, in the sense of trying to prevent the interviewee from putting his case. At risk of stretching the point a little, Edmund Campion and Robert Southwell had to face far more vicious interrogators than this and they managed to put their line across - to the great benefit of future generations. The Church has a great and glorious case to put. It may be shouted down again and again but it should be put and put clearly.
Joe - I agree that it is difficult on the spot to formulate a response in that kind of situation. That would excuse a bit of fumbling/waffling etc. but not the remark about the value of human life.
Glad you've raised the question of the BBC, Father. On the Radio 4 Today programme on Monday morning, I heard a disgracefully biased report on the subject of stem cells from the BBC Science Correspondent Christine McGirty, who when asked whether scientists were unanimous on the use of embryonic stem cells, said "absolutely", and went on to suggest that this was necessary to develop cures against Alzheimers and Parkinsons disease. If she had read a letter in the Times on the previous Friday, she would have come across some very different views from a number of scientists around the world.
But the BBC so blinkered in its relativistic outlook, will no longer report views that contradict its arrogant world-view. Why should we go on paying their licence?
I take your point about the Beeb, we have all seen this sort of cheap trick used - particularly against members of the clergy - hundreds of times. However, the slip is telling and he does need to retract it or it will be used against pro-life campaigners ad infinitum. What really scares me is that with this change in the law, if I ever have a child with a serious medical condition, I may be regarded as heartless and negligent if I do NOT have IVF to create a designer baby.
Sorry, Ann, I just don't agree with your assessment of the weight given in the item. If it were a short extract from a recorded item, your point would hold. But it constituted about two-thirds of the total time. The Archbishop was then cornered into responding to a highly emotive item rather than having an opportunity to give the case for the other side.
To some degree, I agree with you that Catholic clergy need to expect this in Britain today and I feel that Archbishop Nichols might have been better prepared for the slant of the item and should have been much more assertive in his response rather than simply respond to the emotional blackmail that was presented. (But it is easy enough for me to say that after the event.)
But slanted it certainly was. The BBC is still (I think) meant to be a public service broadcaster and there are certainly different views on this in society and in Parliament. If the prevailing moral view in Britain is in favour of saviour siblings and embryo research, this is not unrelated to the BBC's relentless moral liberalism which does influence public opinion.
So while I agree with you, of course, that clergy need to be ready to give battle on these occasions, I still think it is important to highlight the point that battle is necessary because the BBC so blatantly takes sides.
Father -
While I agree with you that the BBC's coverage of this issue has been slanted in a way that we should be entitled to expect a public service broadcaster's coverage not to be, I am obliged to support Ann's point.
Archbishop Nichols is an experienced media performer (we can recall his commentary on the funeral of Pope John Paul and subsequent events, for which he received much praise), and it would not have taken a PhD in prescience to have known that the argument from hard cases would have featured prominently in the questions directed to him.
Moreover, Ann is right: any media trainer would always advise you to try to negotiate to be the live interviewee, because what you say cannot be edited, and you can more easily rebut the arguments of the pre-recorded interviewee.
Sadly, we seem to lack spokesmen who can readily articulate what the Church teaches and why she teaches it.
Father,
I have to agree with Ann on this. Like Ann I worked for the BBC as an editor and a producer. I do not usually defend the BBC but I feel in this case you are mistaken
It is no big secret that BBC News and Current Affairs programmes will, on many occasions, focus on the personal experiences of individuals concerning some aspect of legislation or news event. It happens all the time: on the 10p tax fiasco, on Northern Rock, the Terminal 5 debacle, etc. etc.
The onus in this case was not on the BBC to challenge the father whose child is suffering a serious medical condition. Neither was it “emotional blackmail” for this man encapsulated the saviour siblings dilemma; he expressed his position eloquently and calmly. It was legitimate for the World at One to interview him. The onus instead was on Archbishop Nichols to be prepared to face such a scenario and to respond intelligently and compassionately while at the same time explaining and clarifying the church’s position on this issue, especially as the Church has been at the forefront in opposing the HFE Bill. Instead, the archbishop seemed surprised and unprepared by the eloquence of the previous speaker.
The Catholic Church of England and Wales needs to be more media sharp. Rule number one: you do not just say “Yes” to any interview request, especially on such a sensitive issue. You first ask in what context it will appear; who the other guests are, what line of questioning is to be expected. Rule number two: be prepared to be “hectored and interrupted” by the presenter so that you do not appear flustered; expect to be asked to respond to the individual human story and work out your response beforehand. And above all: prepare yourself to be asked the unexpected by working out different likely scenarios that may occur.
This is a game and to play it well the Catholic Church will have to learn the rules if it wants a place in the public square.
Really we should have nothing to do with the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation
Ha! That's a good one. Have to remember that next time.
Dominie - do you actually know for certain that Archbishop Nichols allows that sort of filth in his archdiocese? Seriously, if this is true, then it needs to be reported to Rome immediately - and urgently considering that this prelate is a candidate for the seat of Westminster and the Red Hat!
Hang on a minute. I wasn`t going to weight in, but...
1. You don`t have to be an eminent scientist at the cutting edge of embryo research to know that talk of a cure from this new licence to experiment is a fallacy. There will not be any cures for Parkinsons or ALzeimers or MS from this. Anyone who thinks there will be is living on their own planet. The best defence the scientists can offer is "well, we have to start somewhere" Therefore, by putting up the hard case "Catholic" doctor - obviously so convinced of his own position that he hid behind anonymity - the entire debate was disingenously angled from the outset. The listener is encouraged to believe that this poor poor man could be denied help for his sick family all because of the nasty religious people. This is a lie and it is a deliberate lie, perpetrated by a group of people who are institutionally Liberal, whether they like it or not.
It falls well outside the role of a public service broadcaster, and in fact the really disappointing part is that this was truly bad journalism. Whoever set up that debate and decided it should be done like that was not very bright.
2. I do not listen to or watch the news to be told what to think. I`d just like the facts, please. I have my own congnitive processes and set of values which then enable me to process that information and decide for myself what I think.
3. Newsgathering is supposed to be impartial and even-handed. There are many ways one could cover this story. The BBC chose a level of debate that appeals to the emotions ONLY. Where were the scientists on WATO ? why not ask them what on earth they think they are doing, lobbying the government to carry out research of this appalling nature, when there are still yet many unexplored avenues, such as stem cell research which are mucyh more ethically acceptable and do not cross the line. Let`s hear from the responsible scientists who will say "no, we shouldn`t be doing this, it`s the wrong direction".
But no, we have a completely polarized limited view of the whole story. It was lazy, sloppy, knee-jerk, emotive journalism of the worst kind. It was slanted, and given the facts, it was not even slanted in a way that took account of the scientific facts. The whole sequence was deceitful and if I had been in charge of producing it, I`d have been a bit embarrassed.
Everyone needs a place to think ? More like everyone should be told WHAT to think. That`ll be £131.50, thanks. Kerching.
ottaviani
check out the Diocese of Birmingham website especially education pages. Last time I looked there was something about a partnership between the Teenage Pregnancy Unit(those nice folk who advocate the distribution of condoms, and want school nurses to arrange abortions behind parents' backs, and the dioceses' own education service.
Ottaviani
They use a programme called 'Here I am' which is self-centred and not God centred. Daphne McLeod says it's a dreadful course - soon bringing out a critique of it. Also I wrote and complained about the RE texts used at my daughter's catholic school in sussex - all written by the CES (V Nichols is in charge of this dept). In one of the chapters is a lady vicar and the implication is we should allow women priests. I photocopied the pages and sent them to Rome. I didn't hear a dicky back. I also wrote to the CES and complained - again not a dicky back. the whole RE 'catholic' text book is full of ambiguities and no doctrine.
Dominie
They use a programme called 'Here I am'
"All that I am"
"Here I Am" is an RE programme that is used in many dioceses - not in fact in Birmingham where they use the much better "The Way, the Truth and the Life."
I agree that there are problems with All that I am - see, for example, the critical appreciation by John Fleming in Faith Magazine. But, to be fair, it is not the kind of "filth" promoted by secular sex-educators.
Post a Comment