| What you can't do in your own house |
|
If you bought a house and found that you couldn't do any work there on the Sabbath even though you were not a Jew; if you were not allowed to use fly spray to kill flies even though you were not Buddhist; if you discovered that you could only eat Halal meat there despite not being a Moslem, then I think that you would be shocked. After all, at least in Britain, we do not expect other peoples' religious demands to be imposed on us - particularly in our own homes. Now although none of these conditions affect any house I've ever come across, the Catholics have succeeded where others have failed. The other day I was looking at the title details* of a house I was thinking of buying. To my astonishment, it was subject to conditions ("restrictive covenants") which would have the effect of preventing anyone, while in the house, from taking the morning after pill, taking any step in connection with IVF (e.g. taking the drugs needed to assist implantation oof the embryo), being involved with surrogate motherhood, artificial insemination or, strangely, taking part in medical trials (e.g. regarding the safety of new drugs) where they themselves would not directly benefit from the experiment. Amongst other things, they also prevent you from being involved in any sense with euthanasia or assisted dying, including giving advice or counselling in connection with any of these things at the house (which would include over the internet) - "even if permitted by law". These are all consequences of the very comprehensive wording imposed at the time of the sale by Father Hudsons Society of the land in 1988, land which was used for the development of a small housing estate in Coleshill. The Society is the "Social Care Agency of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham" and their president is Archbishop Vincent Nichols. Their wording amounts to a statement of Catholic doctrine on the so-called rights of the unborn child and their ideas regarding assisted dying or euthanasia. And the restrictions apply to everyone living there regardless of religious affiliation. They apply notwithstanding the fact that half way between the Father Hudsons offices in Coleshill and the houses in question are the local doctors' surgery and two chemists' shops, all of them no doubt dens of iniquity as far as the Catholic church is concerned. To see restrictive covenants in title deeds is not unusual. They are used to impose some sort of order on housing developments for the benefit of those living there - which means, ultimately, to keep property prices up. You will find prohibitions on using homes for business purposes and covenants preventing commercial vehicles or caravans from being parked in the front garden. Often upon the sale of a vicarage a covenant is imposed preventing it from being called e.g. "The Old Vicarage" or anything else which could suggest a connection with the church. When Breweries sell off unwanted pubs, there is sometimes a prohibition on using them as pubs or off-licences without the Brewery's permission - which obviously they are going to charge for. Some more upmarket developments impose restrictions on more detailed things such as satellite dishes and the height of hedges. When creating Bournville village, the Cadbury family, being Quakers, imposed conditions which made it impossible to sell alcohol there. But none of these covenants attempt to regulate personal morality in the home. The Father Hudsons Society has boldly gone where no-one that I know of has gone before. Now it would be easy, very easy, to call into question the moral standing of Father Hudsons Homes as they were then known. According to the BBC report** of the trial which took place, finally, in 1998, a Roman Catholic priest, Eric Taylor, was jailed for seven years for sexually abusing boys at their orphanage in Coleshill between 1957 and 1965. Some of the boys were as young as six. The court was told that Taylor abused boys and then stood by as they were beaten by nuns for complaining about their ordeals. Throughout his trial, middle-aged men gave graphic evidence of what Taylor had done to them. Some compared the regime to a concentration camp in which they were known by number rather than name. Another told of a reign of terror at the home, which he called Taylor's "harem". Some were not there to see Taylor convicted, having committed suicide because they could not live with what the priest had done to them. The rights of children were not exactly paramount at this time. The Society finally gave the surviving victims a (private) apology in 2004. But, regardless of the moral standing or, in this case, the lack of moral standing of the former owner of a piece of land, it seems to me that in a country such as ours it is plainly wrong for someone to impose his moral code on the next owner. We do not live in a theocracy. We have a system which enables us to decide what laws we should all abide by. It is called democracy. Morals are for each individual to decide upon. The Catholic Church should stop acting like an Iranian Mullah and accept that it has no right to decide what we can and can't do in our own homes.
|