What is an 'Innocent'?

I've noticed that when Catholics want to appeal to the emotions with regard to abortion or similar topics they frequently use terms such as 'slaughter of the innocents' and other phrases including the word 'innocent'. 
I really don't get it.  If one's fundamental position is that all life is sacred, and it is only God who has the right to give and to take life, why should it matter whether the person is an 'innocent' or not?  Is it less bad to kill a person who has committed a sin?
It seems to me that so much of the Catholic way of thinking is based on emotion rather than reason, and yet many take great pride in stating that they embrace reason.  Conversely they accuse those who relinquish their faith of being guilty of pride.
This morning I was reading the blog of the Archdiocese of Washington.  To an outsider these people appear to be so wrapped up in their narrow view of life that they have lost touch with what it is to be truly human. In one thread they repeatedly assert that someone who has relinquished his faith must have done so out of ignorance, and they all say they will pray for him.  I guess that's a charitable thought, but do please keep your prayers for someone who appreciates them.

Belief in a benificent God is surely an exercise in human wish fulfilment?

Although we feel that the most truthful things are our feelings, in actual fact these feelings are very manipulable. The mind's scepticism is willingly disarmed so that skillful rhetoric stops people being able to think clearly and be critical of what’s being offered. People willingly put themselves in a position to be hypnotized and to lose their powers of reason.

The more bodies you put together the less individual minds remain independent. Intense feeling gets under people’s skin. It’s like joining in a communal purge. They start to speak in tongues. Freudians would say it’s free association - They will speak the truth of their desire. They think that if they speak in this way then it bypasses self censoring, and they start to believe that they can commune truth direct with God.

Welcome to Pentecostalism - a religion for the 21st Century?  It's like a political movement without a central core (unlike Catholicism). Anybody can start a Pentecostalist Church. There is no central doctrine or control. In South America Pentecostalism threatens to supplant Catholicism as predominant Church. And it is also strong in China and in Korea, and even underground in N Korea.
It's been said to be‘In love with the poor’ - it speaks to their needs, and gives their lives purpose.

Of course, it's all fantasy, but if it makes people happy and encourages civilised behaviour amongst many who need something they feel is external to them to tap their innate sense of morality then maybe it is not so bad.  Hmm...

Catholics and Natural Law

What is "Natural Law"?  Look it up in Wikipedia and you would be forgiven for believing that it can mean almost whatever the user wants it to mean. 

Catholics appear to define natural law as the rule of conduct which is prescribed to mankind by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed mankind.  Recently I've come across the expression several times in discussion with Catholics, who declare it as a kind of self-evident trump card.  As in "homosexuality is wrong - It's against natural law".  When looking natural law up at a website calling itself "Catholic Encyclopedia" I was surprised to be given as an example of natural law that in certain circumstances Polygamy can be lawful but that polyandry can never be lawful, presumably because of something written by a misogynist in the Old Testament.

I find myself wondering how laws which to a modern reader often appear bizarre, and are prescribed by a supernatural being, can possibly warrant the title of "natural".  Moreover, not even Catholic scholars through the ages can agree on the detail. Is it perhaps time to drop this rather unhelpful expression?

Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

When I visited the Pro-life "prayer vigil" outside Central London Marie Stope clinic I was handed a glossy leaflet aimed at persuading people not to go ahead with an abortion, and suggesting that awful things were likely to happen to those that did go ahead. I looked up one of the website referred to in the brochure (http://www.flionline.org/) Family Life International (FLI) describes itself as a "Catholic Pro-Life/Pro-Family non-profit making, world-wide organisation".

I was struck by the piece on "Natural Family Planning" (NFP).  It seems that any form of artificial contraception is wrong, but "natural" contraception is ok, and advice is given on how the husband and wife can help each other to confirm when the wife is and is not fertile.  The piece ends with the sentence: "SAFE's design encourages the involvement and participation of a husband in the charting of his wife's menstrual cycle, thereby allowing him to be aware of his wife's fertility."

I just can't get my head around the double standard here.  It seems to be saying that it's ok after all to have sex just because you enjoy it, as long as you use the 'natural' method.  Surely if contraception is viewed as wrong it really should not make any difference what method is used.  Am I missing something?

People who live in Glasshouses... (again)

A mildly amusing post by someone responding to George Pitcher's (who he calls church mouse) Telegraph column, in which Mr Pitcher dismisses the National Secular Society (NSS)as being very small, but with a loud voice.

The churchmouse confuses a pressure group with voluntary membership (the NSS) and a movement which has had two thousand years to expand its control, although in that last 300 years its control has slipped as science has blown away much of the ignorance that bred its silly religious superstitions.

Tell you what, churchmouse, cut me a deal. Let the NSS have just the next 50 years to develop its membership but with these provisos:

1) The NSS gets to ban books, films, web sites or plays that challenge its position.

2) The NSS gets to hold an Inquisition in which it seeks out, with impunity, those heretics who disagree with it, and tortures and burns them at the stake, and confiscates their estates to add to its funds.

3) The NSS gets loads of taxpayer funds to run secular schools and discriminate against religious parents and teachers – and pupils, since the NSS will be allowed to select the brightest ones

4) The NSS gets 26 free seats in the House of Lords with which it can veto any legislation that it finds objectionable to its cause.

5) NSS officers get to have their buildings subsidised by the taxpayer, and get an exemption from personal Council Tax.

There you go, churchmouse, I’ve given you some 1950 years’ advantage but I’ll bet the NSS membership will grow significantly in the other 50.  What do you say?

"Against all Gods"

You may recall the recent poster campaign on London busses, which read:

"There's probably no God.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I saw an interesting suggested variant on a blog today:

"There's probably no God.  Now stop killing each other and enjoy your life."

I was reminded of another passage by A.C. Grayling at the conclusion of one of his thoughtful essays in his book "Against All Gods":

"For over a centrury after Luther nailed his theses to Wittenburg's church door, Europe was engulfed in ferocious religious strife, because the church was losing its hitherto hegemonic grip and had no intention of doing so without a fight.  Milions died, and Catholicism won some battles even as it lost the war.  We are witnessing a repeat today, this time with Islamism resisting the encroachment of a way of life that threatens it, and as other religious groups join them in a strictly temporary (given the exclusivity of faith) alliance for the cause of religion in general.

As before, the grinding of historical tectonic plates will be painful and protracted. But the outcome is not in doubt.  As private observance, religion will of course survive among minorities; as a factor in public and international affairs it is having what might be its last - characteristically bloody - fling."

I do not share Grayling's optimism that we are witnessing in militant Islamism what might be religions' last fling, but it is certainly bloody.

London For a Secular Europe 2010

Following quote is from the BHA wbsite. I was there. I think I'm just visible in the photo. It was an interesting Rally. Very good natured and civilised. There was a sprinkling of more outlandishly dressed attendees, and a few slightly oddball remarks, but most were distinguished only by their very straightforward views and unremarkable dress.

Around 250 demonstrators met Sunday outside Westminster Cathedral and marched to the Italian Embassy, as part of the second annual London for a Secular Europe demonstration.

Addressing the rally, the organiser from the Central London Humanist Group, Marco Tranchino, said:

'The Vatican is not an immutable fact of life. It is relatively young, and in fact it is younger than the current pope. The Vatican was created by the dictator Mussolini on the 11th of February 1929 with the Lateran Treaty and since then it has gained more and more financial privileges and power on the global political scene interfering insidiously in debates in the United Nations, especially against women's rights and gay rights.

‘11th of February 1929; and that's why on the anniversary of the Lateran Treaty, every year in Rome, thousands of Italians demonstrate against the Vatican and its undemocratic power. We are here to support the Italian demonstration "NO VAT" [“No Vatican”] and demand a secular Europe. We don't ask this of the Vatican. We ask it of the democratic institutions, and that's why we are here at the Italian embassy.

‘Last year, the British Humanist Association, together with the Central London Humanist Group, was the first to support this event in solidarity with the Italian march.’

Representatives from several organisations spoke at the rally, including Bob Churchill, Head of Membership at the British Humanist Association. Afterwards he said:

‘The speakers addressed many issues of anti-secularism, including state-funded ‘faith’ schools in the UK, increasing EU collusion with religious institutions, ‘blasphemy’ laws such as the new law in Ireland, and the impact that is felt around the world when European states compromise on the basic principles of secularism.'