Latest news with #Observer
Indian Express
38 minutes ago
- General
- Indian Express
Keeping its promise, QUAD nations launch first-ever ‘At Sea Observer Mission' to boost maritime safety
In an 'unprecedented step in QUAD Coast Guard collaboration,' the Coast Guards of India, Japan, the United States, and Australia have launched the first-ever 'QUAD at Sea Ship Observer Mission,' the Ministry of Defence announced on Monday. Within the mission that is active under the Wilmington Declaration, two officers, including women officers from each country embarked onboard the US Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Stratton on Monday, and is sailing to Guam. The Ministry further stated that the mission marks an unprecedented step towards QUAD Coast Guard collaboration, which is aimed at 'enhancing joint readiness, operational coordination, and domain awareness in support of a Free, Open, Inclusive, and Rules-Based Indo-Pacific.' This is in line with the vision presented at the QUAD Leaders' Summit in September 2024, signifying deeper ties between the Indian Coast Guard (ICG), Japan Coast Guard (JCG), US Coast Guard (USCG), and Australian Border Force (ABF), the statement read. During the Summit held in Wilmington, Delaware, the leaders of respective nations had planned to launch the initiative to improve interoperability and advance maritime safety, The Indian Express reported. India's participation in the mission, according to the statement, 'reinforces its strategic maritime vision of SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and complements national efforts under the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI), with an emphasis on capacity-building, humanitarian outreach, and maritime rule of law.' 'The QUAD at Sea initiative sets the foundation for a 'QUAD Coast Guard Handshake,' fostering stronger trust, coordination, and collective resilience amid evolving maritime challenges in the region,' the release stated.
Spectator
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Being a Christian isn't easy
Spare a thought for Chris Coghlan, who has learned to his horror that not only is the Pope a Catholic, his own priest is one too. The Liberal Democrat MP, who voted to legalise assisted suicide, attends St Joseph's Catholic Church in Dorking. He complains to the Observer that Father Ian Vane 'publicly announced at Mass that he was… denying me Holy Communion as I had breached Canon Law'. Coghlan believes this represents a 'completely inappropriate interference in democracy by religious authorities'. If you're not a Catholic, at this point you're thinking one of two things: 'No thanks, I'll leave the Papists to their internal disputes', or 'Canon Law would be a cracking name for a courtroom series about a priest turned barrister'. But stick with me, there's something for everyone here. By his own admission, the Dorking and Horley MP was well aware of the Church's opposition to Kim Leadbeater's Bill. He was 'deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote… saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner' [and] complicit in a 'murderous act'.' Now, that's how I like my priests. Spitting doctrine like fire, not some hippie-boomer Father Mulcahy type spouting happy-clappy 1970s nonsense. Father Vane explicitly told Coghlan that, were he to vote for Leadbeater's Bill, it would be 'a clear contravention of the Church's teaching' and would 'leave me in the position of not being able to give you Holy Communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church'. This man has never come within a mile of an altar with an acoustic guitar. Coghlan claims that Father Vane 'weakened his argument by wrongly characterising assisted dying' as 'direct euthanasia, which is putting an end to somebody else's life'. It is Coghlan who is wrong. The distinction he posits is not recognised by the Catholic Church. The Catechism says: 'Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.' Suicide, meanwhile, is 'seriously contrary to justice, hope, and charity' and 'forbidden by the fifth commandment'. Saint Pope John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae, defined euthanasia as 'an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering'. He termed it 'a grave violation of the law of God' and listed it, along with abortion, as 'crimes which no human law can claim to legitimise'. He acknowledged the concept of 'assisted suicide' but turned it over to Saint Augustine, who held that it was 'never licit to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it… nor is it licit even when a sick person is no longer able to live'. John Paul concluded that 'any state which made such a request legitimate and authorised it to be carried out would be legalising a case of suicide-murder'. Even so, was it really necessary to deny Coghlan Holy Communion and announce said decision? Father Vane has faithfully guarded the Eucharist in accordance with Canon 915 and the teaching of Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) in 'Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion'. The legacy of Pope Francis, however, complicates matters a little. As Cardinal Bergoglio, he drafted the Aparecida Document issued by Pope Benedict XVI, which stated that Catholics in public life 'cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the Commandments', specifically citing euthanasia as an example. However, as Pope Francis, he preached that 'the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the bread of sinners'. He also waded into the controversy over pro-abortion US politicians receiving the Blessed Sacrament, saying he had 'never' refused anyone Communion and exhorting priests and bishops to 'be a shepherd' with 'closeness, compassion and tenderness'. Did Coghlan cast his vote with this in mind? If so, even those of us who favour doctrinal soundness over Jesuitical cleverness might wonder if there could have been a way around a eucharistic sanction. Unfortunately, Coghlan puts paid to that when he says he 'supported assisted dying in accordance with my conscience'. He is entitled to his conscience, but it is by definition not a Catholic one. Catholicism is composed of three strands: scripture, tradition and the magisterium, the latter being the instructional authority given to the Church by Jesus Christ. All three are as one on the question of man's creation in the image of God and the sanctity of human life. If you don't believe in these doctrines, then Catholicism is not the religion for you. Coghlan is halfway to that realisation when he says: 'My private religion will continue to have zero direct relevance to my work as an MP'. Catholicism is not a hobby, it's a living witness shaped by rites, dogma, and authority. If it has 'zero direct relevance' to your work, whatever that work is, you're in the wrong church. I hear the Anglicans put on a nice service. This sounds harsh, but it should not be mistaken for a saintly passing of judgement on a reprobate. Like Coghlan, I too am a sinner, perhaps sometimes a public one, and while I hope that I'm not too obstinate I cannot shed my birthright as a Scot. I would be in no position to judge him anyway, for I have recently returned to the Church only to learn that this Christianity business is much harder than I remember. So I speak not with the zeal of the convert but with the unbearable burden of the prodigal son drawn home in the full knowledge of his iniquity and his inadequacy. Catholicism is a struggle, it's meant to be a struggle, but it has to be a struggle you want, not one you merely inherit, or identify with, or thole to get your children into a Catholic school. I had never heard of Chris Coghlan before now. He might be a fine man and a hard-working MP, but he seems very confused about both freedom of conscience and democracy. If an MP was a member of the National Secular Society, was told he would be sanctioned if he voted to send a Bible to every household in Britain, did so anyway, then had his membership suspended, would Coghlan consider this an 'interference in democracy'? If he would, he belongs in neither the Church nor the Commons.
The Citizen
a day ago
- Health
- The Citizen
NICU bills racking up for miracle baby Ayden
Ayden van Tonder was born prematurely at 25 weeks and weighed only 850g on June 7, and has since been receiving treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit of Life Midmed Hospital. According to Ayden's mom, Chané Janse van Vuuren, Ayden is still too fragile to be transferred to a government hospital, despite her little boy fighting valiantly for his life. The Middelburg Observer previously reported that Ayden is receiving oxygen due to his lungs not being fully developed, as well as treatment for a hole in his heart. Chané confirmed that Ayden is doing well, but had to undergo blood transfusions on Sunday. 'His oxygen levels take a dip every time he feeds, and we were told that the blood transfusions will help pick up his oxygen levels.' Since the Observer's articles about Ayden's fight for survival, Chané and Ayden's father, Elijah van Tonder, have seen overwhelming support from the community. Without medical aid, the couple have had no choice but to pay the mounting hospital bills every week. How to help According to Chané, last week's hospital bills are still outstanding, and the couple has to pay R193 771.43 for last week, in addition to another R180 000 for this week, by Friday. The couple have started a BackaBuddy profile for Ayden to raise funds for his medical bills. Anyone wishing to donate towards Ayden's hospital fees are welcome to visit the following link: Donors are also welcome to make contributions directly to Life MidMed Hospital under the reference number: *538036. Read more here: Baby Ayden born at 25 weeks and needs help At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
Spectator
a day ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Should Chris Coghlan be denied Holy Communion?
It is not, it's fair to say, a universal view among Catholic priests that MPs who vote the wrong way on assisted dying and the decriminalisation of abortion up to birth should be punished by excluding them from communion. But so it has turned out with Chris Coghlan, the Lib Dem MP for Dorking and Horley. He voted for assisted suicide and didn't vote at all on the Antoniazzi amendment allowing women to abort up to birth. Now he's complaining that his parish priest is intent on denying him communion at mass. Or as he put it on X: My Catholic Priest publicly announced at every mass he was denying me Holy Communion following the assisted dying vote. Children who are friends of my children were there. This followed a direct threat in writing to do this four days before the vote. In a piece in the Observer, he explained: I was deeply disturbed to receive an email from my local priest four days before the vote on Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill saying if I voted in favour I would be 'an obstinate public sinner'. Worse, I would be complicit in a 'murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded'. Such a vote would, he wrote, be 'a clear contravention of the Church's teaching, which would leave me in the position of not being able to give you holy communion, as to do so would cause scandal in the Church. The priest is in fact entitled to deny communion to those 'obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin' under canon 915 of the Code of Canon law. And plainly, in terms of the teaching of the Church, anyone voting to pass a law for assisted suicide – giving someone poison for the specific purpose of doing away with themselves, as opposed to, say, refusing life support – runs counter to the teaching of the Church in the most public possible way. The priest was arguably correct to describe him as complicit in a murderous act, though Chris Coghlan himself maintains that assisted suicide (whereby a practitioner presents the patient with a lethal dose of barbiturates or some other cocktail of toxins) is different from direct euthanasia, whereby someone, for instance, injects the patient with toxins directly. I'm not sure that's quite the distinction he thinks it is; a murderous act pretty well covers giving someone a lethal dose of poison, even if it's actually delivered by the would-be suicide (let's see how long that provision lasts). And voting to legalise this process is as morally culpable as taking part in it. The question is, whether a public denunciation is the best way to go about changing hearts and minds, even those of self-regarding LibDems. My nice liberal priest friend thinks Coghlan's priest 'is a prat and he should be ashamed of himself. It goes against everything we stand for; we're not in the business of publicly punishing people. The man presumably was following the dictates of conscience, which is the first law. I don't think it helps the church and I don't think it helps this particular chap to change his mind.' And naturally, my liberal clerical friend quotes the late Pope Francis on the matter, to the effect that 'communion is not a reward for the perfect but medicine for the soul'. That's one way of looking at it; the other, more conventional view, is that you shouldn't take the eucharist if you're in a state of grave sin. (Me, I'd like to see that definition more widely applied.) But all this fuss tends to distract, I think, from the actual issue as to whether the Church's approach to assisted suicide is right. And there's absolutely nothing in the bishops' statements on the issue that is specifically religious. That is to say, the Catholic and, I'd say, the Christian view, is nothing else than the moral view that people who aren't remotely religious can share. You may not, like the bishops, regard life as a gift from God, but there's nothing specifically Catholic about their concerns: Can MPs guarantee that the scope of the Bill will not be extended? In almost every country where assisted suicide has been introduced the current scope is wider than was originally intended. What role, if any, will the judiciary have in the process? We were told that judicial oversight was a necessary and vital part of the process; now we are told it isn't needed at all. What will protect the vulnerable from coercion, or from feeling a burden on family? Can the National Health Service cope with assisted suicide or will it, as the Health Secretary has warned, cause cuts elsewhere in the NHS? Can MPs guarantee that no medical practitioner or care worker would be compelled to take part in assisted suicide? Would this mean the establishment of a 'national death service'? In contrast to the provisions of this Bill, what is needed is first-class, compassionate palliative care at the end of our lives. This is already provided to many in our society but, tragically, is in short supply and underfunded. No-one should be dispatched as a burden to others. Instead, a good society would prioritise care for the elderly, the vulnerable, and the weak. As Cardinal Nichols put it: Once assisted suicide is approved by the law, a key protection of human life falls away. Pressure mounts on those who are nearing death, from others or even from themselves, to end their life in order to take away a perceived burden of care from their family, for the avoidance of pain, or for the sake of an inheritance. The radical change in the law now being proposed risks bringing about for all medical professionals a slow change from a duty to care to a duty to kill. Even Chris Coghlan might concede that much. This is why it's so insanely annoying that he's trotting out the usual canards about Catholicism in public life. 'I am not the Catholic MP for Dorking and Horley. I am the Liberal Democrat MP for Dorking and Horley,' he writes, a la John F. Kennedy. But there is nothing specifically religious about the Church's position – if you exclude that bit about life being God's gift. It is one which any conscientious individual might take on prudent and rational grounds, without any spiritual motivation whatever, unless we are to assume that concern for vulnerable people is a Christian prerogative. Coghlan doesn't need to swank about not being bossed about by priests – a position highly gratifying to any English parliamentarian, invoking all sorts of latent prejudice – but instead he should ask himself whether the Church itself has a point. Its argument isn't arcanely religious unless it's arcanely religious to say that human life is sacred. By turning this into a Martin Luther moment – Coghlan stands up to bossy cleric – he is distracting attention from the fact that he voted for a measure which will diminish the value of human life at its most vulnerable. I don't in fact think the priest is being helpful here, though he was perfectly within his rights to warn Chris Coghlan that his vote was at odds with his faith. Publicly condemning him risks turning this rather tiresome Lib Dem into some sort of poster boy for the rights of conscience. But conscience can be a tricky organ; influenced by fashion and opinion as well as by an innate moral sense. Right now, the real problem isn't whether Coghlan will be turned away from the altar rail; it's whether institutions such as Catholic hospices will be required to participate in assisted suicide or whether they will in fact receive specific protection by law to prevent that happening. If they are required to participate in helping people kill themselves, they'll have to close. Over to you, Chris 'Compassion' Coghlan.
Observer
a day ago
- Business
- Observer
Oman Air set to join Oneworld Alliance today
Oman Air will join the Oneworld alliance on June 30, offering integration of loyalty programmes and IT systems, and bookings across partner airlines. Oman Air will integrate its Sindbad Gold and Silver programs with Oneworld's Saphaire and Ruby. Earlier speaking to the Observer, Con Korfiatis,CEO, Oman Air, said, 'Joining the Oneworld alliance significantly enhances our network footprint, through the alliance partnerships, because we'll never be the size of an airline where we fly to every point in the world. We will rely on partners to assist in offering a broader network to offer to our customer base. We already have some relationships with some of the Oneworld members, but it's going to be significantly expanded.' He added, 'Going back double daily into London in October will help in terms of opening up connectivity to North and South America as well, and again through our alliance partners.' According to the CEO, 'In terms of airlines flying into Muscat, that decision has to be made by them. But obviously through their distribution and our connectivity and the broader network, we are driving more passengers onto the aircraft, which allows us to grow as well, whether it's coming in on our partners' flights or it's coming in through us operating more flights and having more aircraft in time as well.' Korfiatis said, 'The new Dreamliner aircraft will be operated to Amsterdam from July 1. We will be looking at more aircraft in 2026-27 and are not worried about not having enough aircraft. If we've got the business and the traffic, the fulfilment of aircraft are not is not going to be a problem.' The airline will offer 15 or 16 percent more seats than last year to Salalah. Screenshot 2025-06-30 100606 Oneworld is a global airline alliance consisting of 14 member airlines. It was founded on February 1, 1999.
