From the editor’s desk

Integrity and compromise

Three major events in the past week have offered insights into the family of today and the family of the future. First, there was the wedding of the Queen's grandson, Peter Phillips, and Autumn Kelly, attended by the divorced and remarried parents of both bride and groom, together with their new spouses. It was a complicated situation familiar to many Catholics who suffer as much from marital breakdown as the rest of society. Then there was the publication of Cherie Blair's autobiography in which she admitted to conceiving her late-in-life baby, Leo, because she forgot her "contraceptive equipment". But while the Catholic Mrs Blair found the teaching of Humanae Vitae hard to accept, she rejected an amniocentesis test which, when it reveals foetal abnormality, often means a mother opts for abortion. Again, many Catholic parents will recognise the situation as similar to their own.

But Wednesday's votes in the House of Commons on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill produced a far darker image of the family. MPs effectively endorsed the end of the traditional family by voting to remove the requirement for fertility clinics to consider a child's need for a father.

This vote, together with those in favour of allowing the creation of hybrid embryos for medical research and the creation of saviour siblings, as well as against further restricting abortion, indicates that the Catholic Church's thinking on fundamentals - on the family, on the beginnings of life - is increasingly in marked contrast with that of the Government. Ordinary Catholics in the pew may struggle with some Church teaching, and welcome the secular state's provision of contraceptives or a divorce, but they too will be gravely concerned with the shape that British society is taking.

The most vituperative critics have gone so far as to attack the Church for speaking at all on the HFE Bill, arguing that religion should be something essentially private. But as Nick Spencer argues on page 6, Christianity is a public religion, and a truly pluralistic society should have space for its voice to be heard. The Church in turn has a responsibility to encourage government to discern what is right.

This takes skill and, on occasion, compromise. While the Church must be true to the integrity of its teaching, it also needs an understanding of what is achievable and what is not. Secular Britain is highly unlikely to accept a total ban on abortion. Wednesday night's four votes on amendments to cut abortion time limits by as much as half led to accusations of church interference. One single amendment on a 22-week limit might well have succeeded.

While MPs decided not to break the link between foetal viability and the law, sticking to 24 weeks, there is undoubtedly growing distaste for late abortion, in part caused by remarkable images of babies in the womb. Also significant is the concern of NHS doctors, with increasing numbers refusing to carry out late abortions. Some hospitals now set their own limits around 16 weeks for abortions on "social" grounds, leaving later abortions to private clinics.

There is also unease over the inexorable increase in terminations, edging towards 200,000 in Britain this year. With the Conservative leader, David Cameron, voting this week for a 20-week time limit, another vote on the issue could well be possible, should the Tories win the next election. It will provide the Church with another opportunity to be part of the debate. In the complicated world of politics, getting your voice heard requires far more than shouting loud and clear. It requires an understanding of the battles you can help to win and the battles that will for the foreseeable future be lost.