An important contribution to the debate about "time limit" measures was made by Colin Harte in his book "Changing Unjust Laws Justly. Pro-Life Solidarity with "the Last and Least." Rather than attempt to summarise the book myself, I refer you to the Publisher's notice (Catholic University of America) and to an excellent Review by Francis Phillips.
The closely argued book is not by any means light reading but it is lucidly written and makes a vital contribution to the current debate. One of the most important sections of the book is the author's analysis of Evangelium Vitae n.73 (and n.90).
10 comments:
I read Colin Harte's book when it came out, and it made a deep impression on me. I learned a lot from it. You're right that it's not exactly light reading, though some parts are much easier than others. The account of what happened with David Alton's bill is pretty sobering.
What is interesting is that Colin Harte was closely involved with the Alton bill and the book seems to be a "mea culpa" for the errors which he blames himself for as much as anyone else. There is something very honest and touching about a writer who is prepared to take a self-critical approach, and given that the pro-life movement has not exactly been successful (at least in parliament) this approach is not a bad thing.
I definitely recommend the book.
From the review and the publishers' blurb it sounds very interesting. Very challenging too. Thank you for the recommendation.
It seems that the pro-life groups are divided on this matter. Which ones should we support?
Dominie
Pro-lifers feel so desperate to save lives that we are inclined to agree to anything if it has the label "pro-life." I think Colin Harte's book is very helpfully drawing the pro-life movement's attention to some wider issues that have been neglected.
He had a letter in the Catholic Herald on Sunday, with a very powerful conclusion:
"...only just laws can be promoted and supported. There is nothing just - and nothing pro-life - in legislative proposals that make arbitrary distinctions between different categories of unborn children. Pro-life advocates undermine the truth and justice they seek to uphold if they become complicit in enacting unjust laws, even if this is done for the noble end of saving some lives."
It seems obvious when you think about it, but if we are enacting a law to restrict abortion, the law being enacted should be just. Otherwise, we are just making a mockery of the system of law. Voting for an unjust law to achieve justness is an oxymoron.
I think the pro-life cause has been undermined by referring to such things as viability, and by agreeing to later abortion for disabled babies as the price of lowering the time limit for social abortions. Ultimately, the cause has been undermined because moves like this are not just.
I remember talking about the question of gradually improving the Abortion Act with Alison Davis of SPUC a few years ago. I mentioned that the anti-lifers were gradually making the situation worse, and that we were progressively going down the proverbial 'slippery slope.' Surely, I said to her, the only way for pro-lifers to make progress is to make the same sort of gradual progress in reverse.
If you've met Alison, you will know how clearly and succinctly she can make a point, and I'm sorry I'm not going to do justice to her reply. But the gist of it was that once you are on a slippery slope you can only go one way - downwards. You cannot ascend a slippery slope, because it just keeps pulling you downwards. Ascending it is an impossible task. What you've got to do is get off it, and stay firmly based on the right, firm level and draw others to your level by the truth of what you say.
She expressed it better, and I hope I haven't garbled what she said. I know she is very supportive of Colin Harte's book too.
Dear Fr Tim,
I think Colin Harte is mistaken in his interpretation of Evangelium Vitae n.73/3. The case against his position is argued at some length by John Finnis in the debate he conducted with Colin Harte in Helen Watt (ed) 'Cooperation, Complicity and Conscience. Problems in healthcare, law and public policy' [London: The Linacre Centre 2005], pp.179-295. You can find a very brief statement of the essence of Finnis's interpretation of EV 73/3 in a paper of mine delivered at this year's General Assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life. The paper can be accessed on the Academy's website.
In making this comment on Colin Harte's interpretation of EV I do not wish to give the impression that I favour any attempt in present circumstances to amend the Abortion Act. SPUC's assessment of the likely consequences of doing so seems to me correct.
Renewed thanks for your excellent blog.
Luke Gormally.
I don't support 'Life' as I don't like the way they 'removed' God from the counselling room (I know this as I went on a training course with them) - plus they use non-directional counselling and Rogerian techniques - hum.
I think Good counselling network and UKlife league are fine as they refer to God alot.
There is that saying "without God you can do nothing" - I think this must be true. The Life centre in Tunbridge Wells closed down and many are closing. I wonder if it is because they took God out of the equation.
Dominie
Luke - I had a look for your paper at the Pontifical Academy for Life website but couldn't find it. I'd be grateful if you could send me a link or a copy of the paper. Many thanks for your kind comment.
Dear Fr Tim,
The link is: http://www.academiavita.org/english/AssembleaGenerale/2007/rel2007/eng/gormally-eng2007.pdf
Note: the second occurrence of 2007 is preceded by the letter 'l' not the number '1'.
When I clicked on 'Preview' only half the link I typed appeared! If it fails to appear, then go to
http://www.academiavita.org/english
then click on 'General Assemblies' on the left hand side, go to this year's (13th) General Assembly, and click on 'Papers' on the right hand side, and you will have access to all the invited papers given this year.
Pages 25-29 are the relevant part of my paper; as you can appreciate, the brevity of the treatment means that I offer no more than the gist of the counterposition to Colin Harte's position. I refer in a footnote to an article in the American Journal of Jurisprudence by John Finnis which offers a lucid defence of his position, far more accessible than the prolix polemic with Colin Harte in the volume edited by Helen Watt. I'm sure Don Smith, the Librarian of The Linacre Centre, would be happy to provide you with a photocopy of the article. Don can be contacted on 020 7266 7415.
I'd be happy to send you as an email attachment a copy of my paper; you have my email address, so you could let me have yours.
While I'm writing, may I ask whether there is any chance that the Association of Priests for the Gospel of Life might organize a major conference for priests next year on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae? Or perhaps collaborate with others interested in appropriately celebrating that anniversary.
Luke.
Many thanks, Luke. I have now got the paper via the link you posted. I am glad to see that the paper is on the subject of co-operation in evil. This is a difficult subject and I look forward to reading the paper.
A major conference on Humanae Vitae would be an excellent idea. I am not sure that the APGL is in a position to organise it: we are all priests working in parishes so it might be better for us to co-operate in a venture.
On a technical note - I have described how to put links in the combox so that they appear as clickable hyperlinks. (See Putting links in the combox.)
Post a Comment