'Cura cares." I happen to believe that Cura cares very much indeed. Some years ago I was asked to address the Cura national conference.
The women and men that I met were highly impressive. Some of us may write columns about the innate dignity and worth of every human being, but other people actually go out and volunteer and do something practical about it.
All around the country these volunteers, the majority of whom are women, take part in a high level of training for crisis pregnancy counselling and give generously of their time. They displayed palpable concern for the clients who come to them.
One woman spoke of lying awake at night, thinking about a particularly horrendous story that she had heard that day and wishing and hoping that everything would work out. She knew she should be more detached, but the reason she became involved is because she is not a detached kind of person.
Cura is an important organisation. It is the only nationwide network of crisis pregnancy counselling centres. In recent days it has been embroiled in controversy regarding the distribution of the Crisis Pregnancy Agency's Positive Options leaflet.
This leaflet contains contact details for other counselling agencies, some of which are willing to provide abortion information.
Like lots of moral dilemmas, the decision to distribute or not distribute the leaflet was not an easy call. Contact details for other agencies are given only when a client has explored and rejected everything except abortion.
The thinking is that if a woman goes to another counselling agency where there is a legal requirement to present positive alternatives to abortion, there is at least a slim chance that she may change her mind.
It was a judgment call, and one that Cura made in consultation with well-regarded moral theologians. Slowing down the process of decision-making has been shown to be an important factor in determining the outcome of decisions about abortion.
I imagine that Cura reasoned that if a woman simply went to directory inquiries for telephone numbers of abortion clinics, as she easily could, there was little possibility of further reflection, and abortion would become even more likely.
However, Cura does not appear to have taken into account the need to communicate that reasoning, and certainly the response to public disquiet since the story broke has been slow to non-existent. This means that the damage is far more widespread than it might have been.
People are left with the impression that Cura was merrily facilitating women in procuring abortions. Sadly, the failure to come out and coherently present their side of the story is fairly typical of the Bishops' Conference, and they pay for it dearly.
Ultimately, Cura's decision to provide the leaflet may be untenable, for a number of reasons. Cura knows why it is providing the leaflet, but will it be read as tacit approval of the choice of abortion by both its clients and the general public?
That is an impossible position for an agency like Cura to be in. Cura believes that abortion is not a good choice for women, or their children. It cannot be seen to be complicit in any way with agencies that believe differently.
The furore concerning the leaflet highlights another, and perhaps more significant, issue. The Crisis Pregnancy Agency (CPA) came into existence with the sole aim of reducing the numbers of women seeking abortion.
Women choose abortion for a number of complex reasons, but it is generally agreed that they do so, often with a heavy heart, because it seems like the least bad option at the time.
The CPA surely should have a strong emphasis on promoting the idea, and making it a reality, that abortion should never have to be the least bad option. The fact is that some of the agencies which the CPA funds would argue that abortion is a matter of choice and would be deeply unhappy at promoting the idea that there is always a better way than abortion.
Obviously, the relationship between a counsellor and client precludes being directive, if only for pragmatic reasons, because people who feel they are being dictated to will reject advice, no matter how well-meaning. (However, non-directive does not mean neutral.)
Cultural change is needed to make abortion more rare. Cultural change has to happen in the wider society. For example, just this week in the US, Democrats for Life (no, that is not an oxymoron) launched a plan called 95-
10 at the Democrat headquarters. The aim is to reduce the numbers of abortions by 95 per cent by 2010.
Much of the content of the plan is geared towards the US, a country where there is little or no social provision of medical care. However, the overall aim of reducing abortion by 95 per cent could surely be adopted here. One cannot imagine the CPA embracing such a radical idea.
Yet I believe there would be widespread support for such an initiative among the general public. Is the CPA dog being wagged by a minority pro-choice tail?
One gets the distinct impression that the CPA believes that if you throw enough contraception at the problem of abortion, it will go away.
If human beings were that rational, there would be little heart disease, or obesity, or even domestic violence. Much more radical action is required, so that a woman never has to feel that the worst possible thing that could happen to her is to allow her own child to be born.
That means an array of practical supports, combined with public advocacy campaigns on behalf of alternatives to abortion. It means giving accurate information on the negative consequences of abortion, including the increased risk of serious depression.
What it does not mean is spending public money on a Positive Options campaign, and including in it some agencies that believe that abortion is sometimes, or often, a positive option.