That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill

Dealing with Lazarus

2012-02-10T18:03:00.000Z

For quite a long time, I used to see a young man from our soup run sleeping at the back of the Church of Christ the King (CCK). In an alcove, he placed some cardboard boxes and would sleep there at night. I wondered to myself whether the regulars at CCK responded to him with Christian charity and love.

Then, a week or two ago, I noticed something incredibly strange. A wired, metal, grill had been erected where he once slept. It appears that this is how seriously CCK, who feed the homeless on Monday evenings, actually take the Gospel, when it comes to actually 'dealing with Lazarus'. I know that the Church of Christ the King, the evangelical Protestant community, take 'converting' people very seriously. I know how dedicated to the Bible they are. I also know that the church, undergoing some exterior work in the daytime, has a lot more money than most churches in the area could dream of. I'm just wondering whether they've read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Maybe its another area in which Protestant Evangelicals believe that Our Lord was only speaking metaphorically or 'symbolically'. This picture, to me, speaks volumes!

Peter Drumming

2012-02-10T16:42:00.003Z

Christopher Hitchens's Last Article

2012-02-10T15:14:00.001Z

GK Chesterton: The man Christopher Hitchens could have been...

Click here to read Christopher Hitchens's final article on mind and thought of the great GK Chesterton.

It is so sad that Hitchen's huge intellectual prowess was wasted on the cul-de-sac of thought that is atheism. It is poignant, too, that his last article was on someone who was a better intellectual than himself and only because he believed.

RIP.

The Z Effect?

2012-02-09T16:47:00.006Z

Now, the great Father Z has encouraged his substantial readership to vote. Prayer can move mountains but blogs can move percentages.

Latest voting results say:

Yes: 56.59%
No: 43.41%

Vote HERE...

Update:

Yes: 57.95%

No: 42.05%

Update:

Yes: 59.94%
No: 40.06%

I'm noticing a trend developing here!

Update:

Yes: 61.79%
No: 38.21%

Japanese Animation of Obama Vs the Catholic Church

2012-02-09T13:22:00.004Z

See also Tim Stanley's excellent piece for The Telegraph today.

Conscientious Objections

2012-02-09T01:28:00.006Z

First things first. A reader alerted me to a Telegraph article about the fact that the state of Texas is to 'enforce a law requiring abortion doctors to show a woman an ultrasound of her foetus before allowing her to go ahead with the operation'.

In the article is a voting poll on the issue of requiring women to see an ultrasound of their growing baby before going ahead with any decision to 'get rid' of the baby.

One commenter in the Telegraph article, defending abortion, said, 'Sometimes you do what you have to do to defend you and yours', as if the aggressor waiting at the end of a dark alleyway with a knife was the baby. No, dear, the guy with a knife at the end of the dark alleyway is the abortionist.

Vote in the poll and boost those 'Yes' votes, because it appears that most Telegraph readers believe that for a woman to see the ultrasound scan of the foetus as part of their termination preparations would just make the clinical 'health procedure' more 'difficult' and 'emotional'. What silly creatures we are, thinking that emotions might get in the way of the decision over whether to kill an unborn baby or not! Blasted emotions! Irritating conscience! Why let conscience get in the way of any decision, eh? That's certainly what the President thinks, clearly! And 'Catholic' Nancy Pelosi. What a tyranny conscience is! We're so much safer with the State taking greater control over individual and collective human freedom! Let's hear it for the State! Down with conscience! Up with the State because only a gigantic leviathan of a State can possibly release us from the bondage of the sacred conscience given to every human being by Almighty God Himself!

And staying in the US, news has come through that a high-ranking official of the breast cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, has resigned in the wake of the decision to reverse a previous decision to stop funding international corporate abortion giants, Planned Parenthood. The resignation again throws the spotlight on the sinister relationship between Planned Parenthood, President Obama and the latter's sudden and violent attack on religious liberty, conscience and the Catholic Church. For a 'man of peace' Obama is turning out to be something of a war president after all. First, Obama declared war on the unborn child, more or less with the first stroke of his presidential pen, in signing an executive order rewarding Planned Parenthood for their having funded his election campaign. Then, he launched war on Libya, in the name of 'human rights' of course. Now, he's opening a new front on the Catholic Church and conscience itself. Liberals come across so peaceful but war is in their hearts. Oh, and that which he promised to do, of course, remains undone.

Obama: "US Bishops would look great in orange..."

Guantanamo Bay, for instance, remains open for business. Is that where people who don't conform to the HHS mandate go? Let's not rule it out, because usually when ideologues start taking on the Catholic Church (and the unborn child), all concept of liberty becomes very shaky, very quickly. For historical references, see Stalinism. ABC News reports that...

'The National Defense Authorization Act, which Obama signed on New Year’s Eve, effectively ends any chances of closing the controversial prison.'

Best to keep it open for dissenters to the brave new world, eh? Don't worry, it won't just be Catholics. First they came for the Catholics...then they came for you.

Meanwhile, here in the United Kingdom, we have Southampton and NHS Trusts doing their level best to combat teenage pregnancy by offering school children as young as 13 contraceptive implants. Apparently, all a 13-year-old has to say is 'me and my boyfriend feel like having sex' and the girl gets the implant inserted under her skin with no questions asked.

Of course, the fact that the legal age of consent in this country is 16 is neither here nor there. It's neither here nor there that child abuse could be taking place in families (it is after all the most common place for abuse - not your local Catholic Church) and that children are given these implants and contraceptives with no questions asked. Neither here nor there, seemingly also, is the fact that parents aren't notified that their children have accepted contraceptive medical treatments without their consent, but hey, as America is learning, the State in the West isn't just 'nanny' now. It's mummy and daddy too. You can't force a woman to see the ultrasound of her baby before making timelines for termination because it might prick her conscience too much. But you can force an entire Catholic community in your country to go against their consciences in order to dish out those 'medical treatments' that won't just inhibit fertilisation, but destroy human embryos. Go, Rick, Go and send this President of the United States of America back to whatever Chicago cesspool from whence he emerged! Yee-hah! You have my prayers!

New Kid in Town

2012-02-08T11:31:00.002Z

There's a new kid in blogtown. A school student from Lancashire has started a blog which very much looks like another fruit of the Benedict effect. His blog is called Corpus Christi Catholic. His blog profile says...

'My name is Brad Jacobs. I am a Catholic, and I attend St Helens Church Hoyland, Barnsley, England weekly. I am Head Server at St Helens and I am also one of the musicians. Oh and also a reader. One day I hope to be a priest. Follow me on Twiter.'

Fr John Boyle informs us that the youngster is 14/15 years of age. Keep him in your prayers, especially given that his hope is to be a Priest. Brad may not like The Eagles now, but you wait until your 35 m'lad.

There's a new kid in town in Brighton as well, though not quite so young and whose future does not appear to be so promising. I would like to interview him for my blog. He struck me as unusual because unlike so many homeless of Brighton he has two large suitcases with him. He is called Peter and has been homeless for 36 days (he's counting). What astonishes me is just how easy it is to become homeless. I never imagined this could happen. He lived with his mother in London. His mother died and his name was not on the tenancy agreement. It's that simple!

He was evicted from the property where he and his mother had lived, being found to have made himself therefore 'intentionally homeless'. He found no help in London and has drifted down to Brighton. He has already contracted a chest infection and it is bitterly cold outside. He doesn't believe he will live long in this weather. He has no access to help here because he has no 'local connection'. He says that he would get more support if he were on drink and drugs but since he is not on either, he lacks 'vulnerable status'. He cannot get a referral therefore to various nightshelters in operation as the temperature in Brighton has plummeted. He told me he sits all day and all night outside the derelict old Blockbusters shop on London Road. Keep Peter in your prayers as well. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to lose your mother and then become homeless in winter in a matter of weeks.

I think that nowadays we often think that homelessness is caused by marital or family breakup, descent into alcoholism and various substance issues. It never crossed my mind that someone could be made homeless, literally, because their mother died. Yesterday was the anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, famous for depicting the cruelty and harsh poverty of his time. The question for Brighton is: 'Who gives a Dickens about Peter?'

Rick Santorum: 'The Bishops Got What They Deserved'

2012-02-08T10:37:00.001Z

“They got what they deserved”, he said. “They fell into bed with the secular left, and then wondered why they forced them to do what the secular left wants them to do.”

I wonder how long it will take for that verdict to be given of the situation in the United Kingdom.

Obama's Assault on Religious Liberty Covered by Telegraph Columnist

2012-02-07T22:51:00.001Z

Courtesy of David Hughes, The Telegraph

'The Obama administration’s decision to take on the Catholic Church at this stage of the political cycle is either very brave or very stupid. As Jon Swaine reports this morning, the President’s overhaul of healthcare includes a provision that religious charities, universities and other groups must now provide contraception in staff insurance packages and failure to do so will result in hefty fines.

More than 150 Catholic bishops have spoken out against the change, with one accusing Obama of waging a "severe assault on religious liberty". According to Alexander Sample, the Bishop of Marquette, "we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees and suffer the penalties for doing so.” With 70 million Catholics in the United States, this looks like a kamikaze mission by the White House. Why have they done it? David Brooks in the New York Times has a persuasive theory:
Members of the Obama administration aren’t forcing religious organizations to violate their creeds because they are secular fundamentalists who place no value on religious liberty. They are doing it because they operate in a technocracy. Technocrats are in the business of promulgating rules. They seek abstract principles that they can apply in all cases. From their perspective, a rule is fair when it can be imposed uniformly across the nation. Technocratic organizations take diverse institutions and make them more alike by imposing the same rules. Technocracies do not defer to local knowledge. They dislike individual discretion. They like consistency, codification and uniformity.
This obsession with legislative uniformity could have a big price tag. When he was elected in 2008, Obama outscored John McCain by 54 per cent to 45 per cent among Catholic voters. That advantage has, I suspect, just been frittered away.'

Monitoring the Monitor III

2012-02-07T15:42:00.005Z

The Catholic Voices Monitor blog has now been altered (yet again - what a rollercoaster!) to read...

'But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion's definition of pro-choice ideology is so narrow and extreme, and its actions so brow-beating and authoritarian, that it will show informed pro-lifers who accept that abortion cannot be prohibited immediately -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but realise that a total ban is currently impossible to achieve -- to be the true advocates of moderate, rational and humane principle.'

A vast improvement, but, if I may be so bold, bad syntax. I still believe that no matter what the political climate of the modern age, all Catholic Bishops of England and Wales favour an immediate legislative end to abortion, no matter how unlikely that remains. Of course, I have no right to speak for the Bishops of England and Wales and it is beyond my remit, but then we had been reassured that Catholic Voices does not speak on behalf of the Bishops of England and Wales either. Which one is it? Finally, I think that at some point both the co-ordinators of Catholic Voices and some of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales are going to come very unstuck over their nuanced presentation of Catholic belief. I found this definition of nuance which I found struck a chord. Nuance is actually a PR nightmare. It cannot grab headlines for the right reasons and its so open to misinterpretation that it grabs headlines for the wrong reasons. I cannot believe that with so much experience in the media, the co-ordinators of Catholic Voices are scoring such bewildering own goals. Our Lord didn't establish the One, Holy, Catholic Church to blend in with the rest of the World. He established it to proclaim Salvation and in every age, She is called by the Lord to be a contradiction to the World and to run against the prevailing culture which in every age tries to bury the message of the Gospel and the Messenger and Saviour Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Monitoring the Monitor II

2012-02-07T00:57:00.006Z

The Battle of Lepanto, Catholic Voices style

As reported earlier, the Catholic Voices Monitor blog today published the following statement concerning abortion and the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales (and 'most Catholics'):

'But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion should be legal, most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.'

Astonishingly, perhaps due to the author or another party reading that passage or having read criticism of it, the Catholic Voices Monitor blog post has been amended. It now reads...

'But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion cannot be prohibited immediately, most informed Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.'

Hmm...Someone in Catholic Voices is doing his or her level best to give Catholics the opportunity to exercise Christian forgiveness. Now, we can all sleep soundly. All of us, that is, except the unborn. There's still something about it that doesn't look quite right. If I were a journalist working for either the Catholic press or indeed any publication, I'd know my next question for Archbishop Vincent Nichols:

'Do you advocate incremental restrictions on abortion, but not yet a total ban and if so, why?'

I'd like to hear it from His Grace, because there's something about the co-ordinators of Catholic Voices I do not trust. For instance, whoever has written that blog post forgets that Bishops have not been called to issue statements or hold moral positions that take into account the political climate of the day. Bishops have a duty to teach, rebuke, uphold doctrine, proclaim the Gospel and call the whole society to repentance to the point that they publicly desire that all men and women turn away from sin and evil today and live for Christ today. I know the United Kingdom is a moral wasteland, but I would never suggest that abortion 'cannot' end today. It can end today, but there has to be the political and moral will for it to end. It will not end today because that will is not yet strong enough, but there is a vast difference between saying that it 'cannot' end and it 'will not end' today. For instance, if Her Majesty the Queen dissolved Parliament, repealed the Abortion Act (1967) and installed a pro-life Government then it would end. That most likely won't happen, but we cannot say that it cannot happen. If the entire Church did penance and prayed the Rosary it most likely would happen! After all, all the Church's victories have been achieved through Our Lady!

Saying it cannot be prohibited immediately is giving too much power to those with power who do not wish for it to end. It's a bit like the Holy League getting together and saying that the Battle of Lepanto should be fought so steathily and nicely that the Ottoman forces will mistake the Catholic fleet for tourists on pedaloes and that they should then try fighting the Islamic hordes with them. A massive group of pro-lifers marching through the capital with banners saying 'We want abortion to end incrementally because we know that there are a lot of vested interests in abortion's continuing existence and its not realistic to imagine it could end immediately' does not quite have the same ring to it as 'End Abortion Now' headed by a Catholic Archbishop leading the Faithful in the recitation of the Rosary. Know what I mean?

Monitoring the Monitor

2012-02-06T22:54:00.005Z

Do these men believe abortion should be merely 'restricted' 'incrementally''?

As Catholics we are well aware that here in the United Kingdom, various laws established by Her Majesty's Government mean that we are as far from the St Augustine's vision of The City of God as we could possibly be. We know that this is no utopia.

We know that the scourge of abortion isn't simply going to end tomorrow. We know that there are too many vested interests involved in the abortion industry for that to take place. We know that because of Original Sin, our elected leaders continue to delude themselves that the choice of abortion that condemns thousands of innocent unborn children to death every year should continue to be made widely available. We know that mothers continue to choose death for their unborn child, over life, for many reasons, none of which are justifiable. We know that doctors and nurses continue to go against basic medical ethics in carrying out this evil, ghastly and monstrous procedure.

We know all of this. That doesn't, however, stop us wishing, hoping, writing, campaigning, petitioning and indeed praying for an immediate end to the grave and horrific injustice of abortion in the United Kingdom. As Catholics, we want abortion to end. When do we want it to end? Yesterday.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Voices Monitor blog, while making a really quite eloquent defense of the Catholic Society at the heart of a controversy involving the UCLU Student Union and its denial of the Society's freedom of speech, has suggested that, at least in the eyes of 'the Monitor', the Bishops of England and Wales take a more moderate and nuanced view on abortion and how it should be defeated.

'But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion should be legal, most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.'

Now, I know that 'some Catholics' were hoping for a statement from the Archbishop of Westminster defending His Grace's flock at the UCLU, preferably in public. Unless someone can correct me, that has yet to happen. We know that the Catholic Voices project is not used as merely a PR operation for the Bishops of England and Wales, because that is what we are frequently told, so surely whoever wrote this anonymous Catholic Voices Monitor blog post either knows something about the Bishops' position on abortion which we hitherto did not, or he or she is presuming to know the minds of the Bishops of England and Wales without asking them and is, indeed, speaking on their behalf in a quite shocking and scandalous way.

I truly hope that whoever wrote that total misrepresentation of the Faith of the Church is sacked, because it is not just the mind of the Bishops that s/he is presuming to know, but indeed 'most Catholics'. Does the author of the blog post believe that the Holy Father, I wonder, falls into this category, because from what I have read of His Holiness's views on abortion, we can safely believe would be really rather happy for all Governments around the World to do what Hungary has just done and draw up a law protecting the rights of the unborn, I believe, without exception.

I don't accept that abortion should be legal. I do not believe that murder of the innocent unborn should be a 'right' in the United Kingdom. I do not favour 'incremental' restrictions, since who are we to decide who is worthy of living and who is worthy of dying at the hands of doctors and nurses? I advocate a total ban on abortion and I had always thought that nothing less than a total and immediate end to abortion in the United Kingdom would satisfy their Lordships because, as Successors of the Apostles, their Lordships are on the side of the defenseless unborn - on the side of Justice and on the side of Christ.

Neither the Catholic Voices project nor the Bishops Conference of England and Wales have been called to defend the Catholic Faith in the public square by promoting moral positions which are held by 'most Catholics', since if 99.999999999999% of all Catholics in the whole World believed that red was blue and the only Catholic in the whole World who believed that red was red was the Pope, the Pope would still be right and 99.99999999999% of all Catholics would still be wrong. Both Catholic Voices and the Bishops Conference of England and Wales have been called to defend the Faith of the Catholic Church and the Faith of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church wants abortion to end yesterday. For the Bishops to desire anything else would be an insult to God, a shocking neglect of the innocent unborn, a source of confusion for the Faithful and a betrayal of their Apostolic mission to bring Salvation, rather than destruction and damnation to the World.

It would appear that the author of that 'Monitor' blog post believes that 'most Catholics' are Catholic in name only and that among them are the Bishops Conference of England and Wales. I hope and pray that whoever wrote what appeared on the Monitor blog does not speak for the Bishops of England and Wales. Whoever, wrote it, I tell you now, you don't speak for me and I, as you know, am a Catholic. It's no wonder that one of the co-ordinators of Catholic Voices wants John Smeaton's head on a silver platter.

Catholic Advertising Standards

2012-02-06T20:32:00.004Z

Brendan O'Neill has picked up on a story about an evangelical Christian group called HOTS Bath (Healing on the Streets, rather than a sauna). Basically, the group has been brought to book by the Advertising Standards Agency for this slogan: 'Need healing? God can heal today!'

My initial reaction was to think of the Protestant evangelicals as the kind of people who try to manipulate both God and man to give quick fix answers for suffering. That reaction hasn't changed much even though the slogan itself appears innocuous. I don't much mind that this group has been censored by the ASA because they sound like the kind of Christians who in the middle ages would have been denounced as being dangerous, heretical and perhaps highly flammable charlatans.

Frankly, it isn't right for Christians to go around promising or misleading people by indeed advertising falsely that God might heal their back problems or arthiritic legs on the streets, as if Almighty God is a therapy that can just be wheeled out when people lay their hands on other people. It's actually quite blasphemous or at least sacriligious.

However, that said, exactly what would Catholic advertising look like nowadays? What do we have to offer and what could we be censured for claiming?

Well, first we promise (though we cannot guarantee) Eternal life, for wherever Peter is, there is the Church and wherever the Church is, there is eternal life. We promise that all baptised become adopted sons and daughters of God brought into the very divine life of the Blessed Trinity itself. We promise the forgiveness of sins to those who want it. We ourselves have received the promise that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church and have been promised that the Lord Jesus will be with us 'even until the end of the ages'. We can promise the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ to those who desire it and are striving to live the Gospel. We promise that all Truth has been given to the Catholic Church as the full and definitive revelation of God. We promise the Church cannot err in Faith and Morals.

The one thing that we do not promise is that we shall all find physical healing in the Catholic Church in this life. Dramatic healings are rare in the Catholic Church, not because God does not or cannot heal or does not want to heal ailments, but because it is, for reasons known only to God, part of God's plan that suffering should not be eliminated from our earthly existence. At the end of time, we are promised, God will wipe away every tear from every eye. The kind of healing the Church can offer, through the Sacraments, is healing from particular sins - what is more such healing is something that requires our active co-operation.

So, it doesn't bother me one iota that this schismatic group have been censured. As a friend of mine often says, after all, error has no rights. The Catholic Church doesn't operate as do protestant evangelical ministries advertising 'healing' for physical sicknesses. Even at Lourdes where there have, since the waters sprang, been around 67 miraculous healings, nobody is ever told that the likelihood of their being healed at the Shrine is high. Actual physical healing is not expected and it certainly is never presumed.

And it is the unholy presumption of this group of Christians that leaves me with little sympathy for their having been censured. The Apostles and primarily, though not only, St Peter went about after Pentecost healing many sick and ill. The healing of the sick and ill was not a marketing ploy and we are talking here about healings that took place because God desired to work miracles through the Apostles in the building up of the Early Church. Incidentally, it has been reported that Pope Benedict XVI recently cast demons out of a couple of men standing in St Peter's Square without knowing he was doing so - perhaps because the men fell into what we could describe as the 'shadow of Peter' or perhaps because His Holiness is truly living up to his title.

Various wonder workers like St Gerard Majella and St Anthony of Padua, especially holy men and women down the ages have healed people of infirmities, but again these 'services' were not exactly advertised by these holy people. They developed reputations for holiness that led men and women to come to them. St Anthony wasn't on the streets of Padua saying:

"Come to Anthony's healing and therapeutic sessions. My intercession is powerful indeed! God can heal today, yes! Slip me a fiver and He'll almost certainly do it and sooner than you expected!"

No. Saints tended not to parade themselves so vulgarly. The wicked feared them and loathed them. Those who recognised their virtuous lives sought refuge in them. And, today, these reputations still bring people to them, hundreds of years after they have died. That is the Catholic way. It isn't 'in your face' marketing campaigns and the Church does not promise, in this life, a bed of roses to anyone.

We could advertise St Anthony of Padua, I suppose and say, 'Lost something? Call on St Anthony because his prayers are unfailing,' but even then, this is the kind of devotional leaflet you might find laying at the back of a Catholic Church. Similarly with St Jude, you might see a novena leaflet for those with 'hopeless cases'. I suppose we could go out giving these prayers and novenas to people on high streets, but, quite simply even that isn't really the Catholic way.

The Advertising Standards Agency are, in my opinion, reaching beyond their remit, which is a concern, but I do have a feeling that the Holy Inquisition would have backed their decision.

Rosary Appeal

2012-02-05T22:07:00.000Z

I have received requests from two people in Brighton asking for Rosary beads.

One is for a set of twins, the other for another lady plus she would like one for her niece.

If you have a spare Rosary, no plastic ones preferably, or would like to buy a Rosary for someone who wishes to have one, please send them to St Mary Magdalen Church, Brighton.

So, the appeal is for four Rosaries, if you could spare one, that would be marvellous. If they're already blessed, even better.

Brighton Rock

2012-02-05T15:38:00.000Z

The recent adaptation of Graham Greene's 'Brighton Rock' is on BBC Iplayer.

Not edifying viewing, perhaps, but a Sunday movie to watch. I missed it when it came out at the cinema.

God, in Your Mercy...

2012-02-04T02:24:00.004Z

We implore Thee to inspire Your Archbishop and the Archdiocese of Westminster's clergy to put an end to the Soho Masses. God, in Your Mercy, hear our prayer.

I've written reams and even written songs about the grave scandal and utter spiritual travesty that is the Soho Masses. The worst thing about it is that it is opportunity for catechesis and evangelisation wasted. You would think that if the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church were going to provide a Mass for people with same-sex attraction, in this era in which homosexuality is so actively promoted, that the above video is the very last thing it would look like. Yet, there it is.

Never have I seen a Mass hijacked for an altogether different agenda than the promotion of the Faith or the good of the whole World than the evidence of the Mass above. There are so many depressing things about it, but one of the most depressing is that the Mass has been turned into a social gathering with a bit of spirituality added in.

No, that isn't the most depressing thing. The most depressing thing is that they are the most introspective bidding prayers I have ever heard. It is a community turned in on itself. And then, to cap it all off, a roll call is read of the poor men who have died from Aids, we guess from within their own community! I know that the Church saves souls, not bodies, but if there is any hint, any hint at all, in that video that the Catholic Church promotes chastity for homosexual men, those Aids victim bidding prayers are that advertisement. What about the people of the parish who weren't gay, lesbian or who didn't die of Aids?! Do they not get prayed for by the LGBT community? Does God only care about gay people or something?

I would not like to be in Archbishop Vincent Nichols's shoes right now because I have a feeling that video is about to go viral and in Rome too. Pray that His Grace will have the courage to end his unswerving loyalty to this organisation of dissidents who seduce men, women and people in between to believe that a change in Church teaching signifying God's desire to drape the Church and the World in one big heavenly rainbow flag is just over the horizon while encouraging them to believe and behave as if He has already done so!

Pray that His Grace will divert his Apostolic authority and support to Encourage, who are in need of Apostolic support. Last I heard, they were looking around desperately for chaplains. Sadly, their website (http://www.encouragetrust.org.uk) seems to be down at the moment. A convincing manifesto to combat 'gay marriage' this video is not, Your Grace.

See also: Fr Ray Blake, Fr Tim Finigan, Linen on the Hedgerow, Caroline Farrow

Destined to Die

2012-02-04T00:17:00.003Z

I came across a really very moving article in a most unlikely source recently.

In the British Medical Journal, I read an article called Destined to Die, an article by a woman who was told that her unborn baby had trisomy 18, a condition which means that the babies who suffer it will not live for long outside the womb.

Pictured above is the title of a blog by a family who in 2010 started a blog raising awareness of their daughter, Lily, and the condition of trisomy 18, asking readers to pray for her. She was born on 4th July 2010 and died on December 15, 2011. The Pray for Lily blog is also a very moving account of a family's love for their child, unborn and born.

In the BMA journal piece, what really comes across is the 'raw love' as the doctor notes, of a mother for her unborn child. The lady is called Pauline Thiele and I for one was impressed with her and impressed that the BMJ actually published her account of her experience with the medical profession. What also comes across is the medical profession's astonishment that the mother showed no hesitation when asked if she wanted a 'termination'. The question is: how have we come to a point where a mother's refusal to turn down an abortion on an unborn child with a fetal condition is shocking?

What troubles me is that in the United Kingdom some of the leading people at the forefront of genetics, medical research and those at the scientific 'cutting edge' are so caught up in trying to 'eradicate' diseases, looking at genetic mutations and how they can be 'avoided', that they're not so interested in meeting the reality of existence for normal human beings.

There is obviously a necessary desire among the medical and scientific community, certainly among the scientific elite such as, say Professor Steve Jones (formerly of UCLU), to launch a war on disease. Aside from the closed, hidden and dark world of human 'embryology', there is an obvious hatred of disease. None of us exactly like diseases. The problem is that the scientific men of the world have a difficult time separating the 'disease' from the 'disease-carrier'. So, for instance, a scan of a mother's womb would reveal to medical experts that the fetus has trisomy 18. Then, when a mother says that while she knows that the disease will result in a child who will not live too long, she doesn't wish to abort, they are flabberghasted.

See, what comes across in the 'Destined to Die' article, mostly written by the mother herself, is the 'raw love' that drives a mother to love this unborn baby with every fibre of her being, to the very end, no matter what it costs her in tears and heartache. And its pretty obvious that when a mother shows 'raw love' to an unborn child, that 'love thing' receives mixed responses from the big-brained medical 'experts' with huge brains but often 'heart impairments'.

The medical and scientific community have always had a problem with miracles, we know, but perhaps modern day miracles aren't necessarily about cures and healings. Sometimes they are about something as simple and as beautiful as love - maternal love - the simple and profound love of a mother for her unborn child.

Quite simply, what the article demonstrates quite powerfully is that love is what the Church says it is, in as much as She proclaims that there is nothing so powerful as love. Apart, that is from God, but then God is Love Itself. What, very often, the most intelligent, scientific and empirical people in the world just don't get is that it is love that makes us truly human. Obviously, the vast majority of the medical profession find love actually quite intimidating. Love is not what society was told it was in the 1960s. It isn't 'free'. It hurts.

Men of modern science and medicine, so many of them at any rate, don't stop to count the cost, the very real cost to humanity that their effort to eradicate trisomy 18, downs syndrome or cleft palate or any medical condition which could make a baby or fetus less than perfect, though, of course, babies are always perfect in their mothers eyes.

The cost is that these men of science deprive the World of the very raw and beautiful power of love. They forget that they will never eradicate downs syndrome, cleft palate, or trisomy 18. They will most likely only ever eradicate the babies with these conditions. They are like the American and English eugenicists who wanted to eradicate poverty in the 1920s. The only way they felt you could do it was by decreasing the number of poor people. That is, by killing poor and often unborn black babies or throwing 'birth control' at poor, often black mothers. Modern day men of science, men like Professor Steve Jones, live in a mythical genetic utopia in their minds, divorced from real life human bonds of love - even the simplest, like the love of a mother for a child no matter what his or her 'defects'. These modern men of science think their war is against disease, when it is obvious to those who look at their research and the statistics on abortion for 'fetal abnormalities' that their war is not against disease, but against people with diseases.

People like Pauline Thiele defy the scientific and medical orthodoxy that assumes that all mothers with babies who suffer fatal diseases which mean their life on earth, if at all, will be brief, should not see the light of day. Not only is this community defied by women of such courage and natural compassion, but the simple truth is that many of them don't even understand why someone would want to love their baby unconditionally until their baby's natural death. That's the really frightening thing! The thought seems not to enter their heads! They key quote in the Destined to Die article which really horrifies me is the response of the hospital when Pauline tells them she wants the hospital to deliver the baby.

'With new awareness I drove to the hospital to see if I could receive some support from the paediatrics department. Stopping at the midwifery ward first I was dismayed that my first visit had not been communicated to them. To me this spoke volumes about what some people thought of my son, but I loved him to my very core and his life was just as important to me as that of any other baby. Surprised by my news the midwife told me that the hospital didn’t actually provide care for babies with spina bifida.'

Er...What are hospitals for, again?

Many doctors and perhaps a proportion of nurses too nowadays obviously have their heads so far up their own behinds that they forget the simple truth that none of us are perfect, all of us have in our lives various conditions and that we are all 'destined to die'. The modern day scientific and medical profession are beyond parody - many are maniacal professors from old Hollywood movies seeking the Elixir of Life. They will never find it. Not in a petri dish at any rate. May God bless Pauline Thiele and indeed all mothers who show such tender love to their unborn children. What a saddening thing it is that these women of courage should be considered exceptional.

Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma Meeting Reminder

2012-02-03T22:08:00.000Z

Breast Cancer Charity Pulls Funding from Planned Parenthood

2012-02-03T09:41:00.001Z

Courtesy of Tim Stanley of The Telegraph

'The breast cancer charity Susan G Komen for the Cure will no longer be awarding grants to the abortion provider Planned Parenthood. This is a sad story because it has injected the culture war into charitable giving in a way that will have terrible long term consequences. But Komen’s decision was inevitable and correct. You might call it a “morally necessary termination.”

Logistically, Komen is no great loss to Planned Parenthood. They donated $700,000 last year, a grand total of 0.058 percent of Planned Parenthood's annual revenue. This is nothing compared to the $360 million that the US government gives the organisation every year (33 percent of their total budget). By the way, many branches of the Girl Scouts are donors, too – something that Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi describes as a “very valuable” relationship. Indeed it is. In return, Planned Parenthood has distributed a pamphlet among Girl Scouts called, “Happy, Healthy and Hot.” This section seems particularly valuable: “Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them.” Will the Girl Scouts be designing a badge for this, I wonder?

But even if Komen’s withdrawal doesn’t make a big financial impact, it has been a PR nightmare for everyone involved. Komen’s efforts to keep its move quiet proved to be a mistake; by not making a public statement for 24 hours it allowed speculation as to its true motives to run rife. Two theories emerged – both incredibly damaging to Planned Parenthood. The first was that Komen had wised up to the relationship between abortion and breast cancer. There is no direct, medically proven link between the two, but a woman who undergoes a termination procedure is statistically 40 percent more likely to develop breast cancer later in life. Komen regards the link as pure hypothesis. Nonetheless, the prolife groups that insist it is real have gained some precious exposure.'

[Full article here...]'

UPDATE: Komen have reversed their decision. Strange...

Deconsecration

2012-02-02T17:16:00.002Z

Courtesy of The Catholic Herald...

A spokesman for Dominic Winter auctioneers has said that all of the religious objects from St Augustine's Abbey, Kent, ready to be sold off at auction have been 'deconsecrated'.

Oh. Well, that's alright then.

Did he mean desecrated because I've never heard of deconsecration?

Read the full story here.

'Here, take my card...'

2012-02-02T16:32:00.001Z

I've been reading responses to the Catholic cards initiative pioneered by our own Rt Reverend Bishop Kieran Conry.

As it happens, I quite like them, design wise and there is a nice quote from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the back.

But...and there was always going to be a but...

As other commentators have pointed out, lay persons don't 'celebrate the sacraments'. Only Catholic priests can 'celebrate' Sacraments. Others have suggested that this calling card has the feel of a bus replacement service for the train to Heaven that is the six precepts of the Catholic Church.

The issuing of these cards by the Bishops does raise other questions, questions such as, 'Why has no previous generation of Catholics required these 'reminders'? The answer would perhaps be that the 'Catholic identity' was so knitted into parish, family and personal life that cards like these were not necessary. Catechesis in childhood and youth was simple, direct and understandable enough for young people to 'get' the Catholic Faith. In addition, the ancient liturgical rite of the Church does or did a heck of a lot of teaching also.

I liked Mac McLernon's suggestion that the cards could, as well as stating the request to call a Priest in an emergency, include the 'patient's desired wish not to be put onto the Liverpool Care Pathway. My only other suggestion would be to have the word 'unceasingly' after 'Pray' (How much should we pray? When?).

Aside from that, I like the cards, while trying to hold back the feeling that they are a little patronising and babyish. Give thanks to God, though, that His Lordship is doing his best to restore a sense of Catholic identity. It still worries me though that previous generations, for whom the Mass was so sacred and so holy, did not need them.

'But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'

Jeremiah 31:33

Fundamental Principles

2012-02-02T11:55:00.001Z

Christians using the right to freedom of speech: But how long will it last?

The reason why the State and the Church cannot co-exist happily in an era of liberalism is that fundamental principles mean very little to liberals.

In fact, fundamental principles mean nothing to liberals. Firstly, because they do not believe they exist and secondly, because even if they do believe they exist, they are there to be destroyed.

In the 1960s, the fundamental principle of freedom of speech won liberals the freedom to promote abortion under the banner of 'women's rights'. Now that abortion is all across the West and it has been accepted by Parliament and society for a long time, liberals wish to do away with the fundamental principle of freedom of speech for those who disagree with it. UCLU is a microcosm of this dynamic taking place on a broader scale in the future.

I don't believe that, in any way, liberals 'won' the argument in the 1960s and 70s. The fact of the matter is that when perfectly reasonable moral, ethical, even medical objections were raised to the legislation, that these objections were summarily dismissed. That isn't winning an argument. That is just beating or ignoring the opposition.

The idea that legalised abortion was the answer for society was sold not based on any fundamental principle at all, but instead the idea that the fundamental principle of the right to life was worth forsaking in order to improve maternal health for women. It all began with the destruction of a moral principle.

The fundamental principle that we shouldn't take life in the womb was discarded because the abortion lobby and its supporters believed that it could and should be abandoned for the sake of decreasing risks to women in pregnancy and by improving (or dare I say sanitising) the abortive 'treatment' process.

At every stage of the liberal dismantling of the legislative moral order it was believed by them that 'might = right'. The fundamental principle of the right to life was overridden by a spurious argument that in this situation 'might is right'. That is why objections raised by many at the time were dismissed. That is why when objections are raised today they too are dismissed. You can see this for yourselves on the comments section of Christina Odone's blogpost on the subject of the Catholic Society at UCL. The objections were dismissed because to liberals and moral relativists 'might is right'. To many commentators, it doesn't matter that the Student Union of UCL have decreed that the Catholic Society must now always have a pro-abortion representative, should any pro-lifer come to talk (presumably to the Catholic community and anyone else who wants to listen), because Catholics and pro-lifers are obviously talking 'gibberish' anyway.

Do you see what they did there? What they are saying is that the fundamental principle of freedom of speech is worth destroying for Catholics and pro-lifers because they don't agree with Catholics and pro-lifers. Now we see how quickly and easily the fundamental principle of freedom of speech can be abandoned!

It goes without saying that the unborn child is the necessary and easibly forgettable victim when 'might = right'. The unborn child, however, is not the only victim. The women who procure abortions are also victims because the injustice done to the child is also an injustice done to themselves - to their own flesh and blood. The other victim in abortion is the fundamental principle itself - that we all have the right to life.

Having abused the first fundamental principle of freedom of speech, distorted it, twisted it and used it to evil ends, that fundamental principle loses value. The second fundamental principle of the right to life is not just twisted or distorted, but destroyed. It only makes perfect sense that in a society in which the first and most natural fundamental principle of the right to life is destroyed, that the second principle, freedom of speech, will too be destroyed for those who oppose the first. This is what is being witnessed quite brazenly at the UCLU.

Presumably, also, one of the reasons why the UCL is so against pro-life speakers is because at the UCL is a 'Fetal Tissue Bank' which receives 'fetal material' from all over the country. Where is a great deal of the 'fetal tissue' from? Let's guess...

Finally, I do hope that the Archbishop of Westminster will soon speak out publicly, since this Catholic Society is in the Archdiocese and lend His Grace's considerable weight and authority to supporting the students whose fundamental right to freedom of speech is being destroyed at UCLU. As one commenter on Christina Odone's blog said, 'When the Labour club meets, a representative of the Conservative club must always be present.' That is how ridiculous this ruling is.

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto

2012-02-01T14:11:00.002Z

The blogs of Fr Ray Blake and this blog have been quoted in yesterday's news on Gloria TV.

Yesterday I was sent an email from Neil Addison of the St Thomas More Legal Institute informing me of news services and sites which have covered the disgraceful restrictions placed on the Catholic Society at UCLU.

The Catholic Herald have covered the story here.

Neil Addison has blogged on the controversy here.

The motion itself can be read here.

'Archbishop Cranmer' has written about it here.

Christine Odone has blogged on it here.

Am I Being Hypercritical?

2012-01-30T20:49:00.004Z

I know that Catholic Voices's brief is wide because the Church's mission and message affects every aspect of human life and that the project has become...

'...a school of a new Christian humanism; and a laboratory of a new kind of apologetics'...

But I can't help wondering whether the 'Academy' is a being a little complacent in the upcoming battle with the Government.

Don't get me wrong. The Church has plenty to tell the Government and society about Catholic social teaching and how it can be employed to make society more just in the work towards what has become known as the 'common good'. My personal opinion is that markets could possibly be made moral but that rich people who are more influential in the markets than poor people do not want them to be. It's one of the outcomes of Original Sin, as is homosexuality.

And last I heard, the Government wanted to redefine marriage over the next year or two and the 'common good' will, in this area, not be served. If I were leading the Catholic Voices (obviously I'm not trying to usurp anyone's job here - such a venture would never be successful anyway and besides, everyone can tell how shy I am) I would drop the beard-stroking session on whether 'capitalism can be made moral' and stick to your guns on making the Church's position on 'gay marriage' and, indeed, homosexuality in general, 100% crystal clear.

In fact, does anyone have a timeline of when marriage is going to be redefined by the State to contradict the very essense of what the word 'marriage' means? How long do we have until this demolition ball is in full swing? If you know drop me a comment because I'd like to know how much time we have before the Government resets the date of the United Kingdom to year zero.

I know that according to the web page that 'on Monday 5 March there will be a talk on same-sex marriage and the threat to (religious) freedom and that the details of the speaker will be confirmed shortly,' but I personally consider that the 'gay marriage' issue is the hottest issue (literally) of the day, week, month and year and I know I am not the only one.

Of course, the CV project doesn't want to be a 'single issue' organisation, but when it comes to the media, what they want to know is the Catholic Church's position on what is about to unfold in the United Kingdom. The media doesn't give two fig leaves for what the Church in England and Wales says about capitalism. You can tell that because when the Holy Father released 'Caritas in Veritate' you could see tumbleweed blowing past every newspaper's office doors. His Holiness only has to breathe a word about the threat to society from gay marriage and newspapers go wild with frenzied excitement. Let's face it, sex sells, even when the Pope discusses it. Besides which, nearly everyone agrees that banker bonuses in the midst of deep recession are bad. It is on this issue, this threat to 'human ecology' in the words of His Holiness, caused by the legislative onslaught of 'gay marriage' that the Holy Father wishes to see the Church in those countries where it is being considered, spring to life and to action.

Like I say, whether markets can be made moral is an important discussion and perhaps I am being hypercritical, but it just strikes me that the publicity for this Academy talk makes it look like the Church is treating the issue of 'gay marriage' as it might 'capitalism and markets'. It makes it look like we are still discussing it, trying to work out the answer and also, at this time, makes it appear that we are ambivalent as to how things will turn out when Parliament goes into motion on the marriage of two men or two women. It makes it appear that we don't care passionately about marriage, or that the Bishops don't care passionately about marriage. Or maybe not. I just saw it and thought, 'The Government are about to do this and you're talking about that?' Keep talking about this because this is where the fight is going to be! This is not a time for navel-gazing.

Bloggers are peripheral to the media. We are not passive in as much as we blog and communicate through the internet but we are also not so active that we are on BBC or quoted in The Guardian. Among the thousands of words that have been said about the CV project, some nice, some not so nice, has been perhaps lost the sense that all Catholics should want uppermost the success of the Catholic Voices project in communicating the Church's teaching and explaining it to the United Kingdom. Further, I don't know any Catholics who do not want Catholic Voices to be a resounding success. Where I do think some bloggers and the leaders of the CV project might differ is in the interpretation of 'success'.

After all, Catholic Voices are there to represent the whole Church, Bishops, Priests and lay faithful, even His Holiness himself, I guess. What they do over the airwaves over the next year either reflects well on us, the Body of Christ, or not. Also, just a thought. Have Catholic Voices recruited anyone who is willing to talk about the fact that they are both a homosexual person and a Catholic loyal to the Magisterium to defend the Church's position in the media? If you want to give Catholicism a human face, that seems to me like a good idea. Otherwise, you'll be open to the accusation that 'the Church just hates gays'. Anyway, I'm sure Austen's got all bases covered. Finally, if you want to attend Academy sessions, get in there quick, before the Academy 'membership scheme' comes in. Obviously, its not my job to tell Austen Ivereigh how to run Catholic Voices. With all his experience he has far more knowledge of the media than I. But then, if that's true for me, then its must also be true for those bloggers who think they could do John Smeaton's job so much better than John Smeaton with all his experience in the pro-life field.

Liberalism and the Last Chance Saloon

2012-01-30T16:18:00.002Z

University College London

Life Site News today carries a report that 3/4 of British Christians believe that anti-Christian discrimination, though perhaps a better word is 'sentiment', is on the rise in the United Kingdom.

The same site informs us that the University College of London is to force the UCLU Catholic Society to invite pro-abortion speakers should any pro-lifer give a talk to their Society.

The same site carries a report that in Barcelona, peaceful pro-life demonstrators had insults, food and then rocks thrown at them for demonstrating against abortions being carried out in Catholic hospitals. In the US, we have news that President Obama is doing all that he can to force the Catholic Church to burn incense to the emperor in a new and more open phase of his administration's desire to silence, divide and then rule the ability of the Catholic Church to proclaim Her faith in Her hospitals and institutions.

We are beginning to see that liberalism's true colours are anything but liberal, but it is also likely that 'we ain't seen nothing yet'. The ongoing spread and rise of liberalism coupled with the State's dominance and frightening control over every sphere of human activity is a one-way road to firstly dividing the Church and then, if She is not pliant, or indeed compliant, crushing Her freedom.

In the US, only an orthodox-believing Catholic president will be able to reverse the tide. It is unlikely the Republican party will elect Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich. In continental Europe, hopes that traditionally Catholic nations would defend the institution of the family and marriage, or defend the unborn child and the freedom of the Church are proving ill-founded, aside from Eastern European states such as Poland and, as Fr Tim Finigan reports, Hungary.

And without wishing to state the blatantly obvious, liberalism's dictatorship is grotesquely unjust. This is not least because the Catholic Church has, in Europe and the United States, as well as the United Kingdom, been the 'salt of the earth' for those nations. In all of these nations, the Catholic Church has provided for those countries relief to the poor in terms of soup runs, soup kitchens and organisations working within communities, doing the kinds of things the State would never dream of doing.

The Church has also provided schools which give education to children - and not all of these children, as we know, are Catholics. The Church has provided hospitals and hospices which have cared for and treated hundreds of thousands of people. Yet, the huge benefit that Church-owned institutions have brought to the Western states is not the only reason why forcing them to go against the Church's own teachings is unjust.

After all, here in the United Kingdom, the Catholic Church continues to be relatively mute concerning the raft of legislative insults to the Christian Faith that this country has seen, even to the point of allowing the State to bring its own liberal ideology into Catholic schools.

In the UK, the Church has been worryingly compliant with Government. Dr John Senatmu's recent defense of marriage was more impressive than anything we have yet heard from the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. How refreshing it was to hear that he believes that the truth about natural marriage is more important than wanting to be 'popular'. We hear little from the Hierarchy in terms of defending the unborn or against human embryonic research. We hear a lot about the danger of cuts to welfare, but little on the right to life. Bishops here are not in the habit of speaking out in ways which embarrass the Government and even when they do, it might have been from a speech from Ed Miliband. In the US, more Bishops are becoming bolder but that is because the Government is removing freedom and liberty from Catholic institutions.

By and large, although liberalism has become the adopted, default position of most Western states, the Church has tried to maintain moral standards in Her own institutions, but has by no means given the Governments of the West a particularly difficult time over its immoral decisions concerning human society.

This is because although the Church has authority over its own institutions, She cannot force adherence to the moral law upon the rest of society. The Church shows a great deal of tolerance, even towards those things which are morally evil. The Church does not, nor cannot, force societies or Governments to accept the Gospel. The Church also understands that her own members too are in need of forgiveness and purification and that there is plenty of sin to be found in the Church itself.

Yet, in the US, and surely over the next few years in Europe and the UK as well, the Church will come under renewed pressure to accept in Her own institutions that which goes against what She believes in terms of both the natural law and the law of Almighty God. The Church forces nobody to believe. Like God, She leaves to men and women within and without the Church free will in choosing God and true freedom, or sin and slavery. The liberal State, however, cannot tolerate those who contradict liberalism. Liberalism, by its very nature, is aggressive. It cannot tolerate 'dissent'. It cannot abide the opposing viewpoint and it sure as heck cannot tolerate Christianity for long. Eventually, it throttles those who are not convinced by its own very arbitrary and narrow definition of freedom.

While in Spain (and England, we are told) Catholic hospitals are only too willing to forget their founders' moral convictions and provide abortions, abortion referrals and abortifacients, in the United States, the power of the Executive arm of Government is forcing Catholic hospitals to go against the conscience of its own workers, benefactors and the Church which laid those hospitals foundations and maintains them. How long before that becomes the situation in Europe and the United Kingdom? How would our Bishops react when, after all the back-room negotiations, consultations and social gatherings, the State decided that the drinks were nice, the chats were friendly, but it is now time to force the Church to do those things that She does not want to? We still have conscience clauses, I believe, for health workers in the United Kingdom. These clauses are, I believe, on their last legs.

Since liberalism began its open assault on the Church in the 1960s, the Church has been nothing but kind to the State and to those who really are Her sworn enemies. Undoubtedly, in some countries, such as ours, the Church has been 'too kind' to these enemies. In the United States, we are beginning to see that co-operation and kindness means nothing to those who seek to destroy the Church. To liberals, kindness is a weakness of which to be taken advantage. Sadly, it will not take too long for the doctrinaire liberalism, the inquisitorial liberalism of President Obama, to be adopted in Europe and the United Kingdom as well. Freedom to worship means nothing if Catholics do not have the freedom to live according to our consciences. I hope and pray that the Bishops do not discover too late that the niceties of dialogue with liberal Governments means nothing and that your freedom to worship means little, when the State removes your right to live according to your sacred Conscience.

Tabula Delenda Est!

2012-01-29T19:29:00.002Z

Thanks to my friend Lawrence who played harmonica on this song and to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints who inspired me. If you like it then Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto, sicut erat in principio et in saecula saeculorum. Amen. If you don't then, sorry. I chose a car park for recording because the acoustics are good and we are the Catholic underground.

Tabula Delenda Est

Well I walked into the Mother Church of England and Wales

To light a candle, say some prayers and confess

Took a stroll around and found a magazine

Enigmatically titled, ‘The Tablet’

So I read a couple of the articles and the more that I read,

The more it dawned on me this mag once had Catholic zeal

Now its a vehicle for dissent

So I said:

‘Tabula Delenda est!’

Now I know why so few Catholics genuflect

They're so comatosed by this infernal, liberal journal

They don’t believe in the Real Presence

‘Tabula delenda est’

The barely beating heart of the Catholic Establishment

Surely its days are numbered

If their faith is so encumbered by liberalism’s foul-smelling stench

Domine exaudi orationem meam

Et clamor meus ad te veniat

When will the axe fall upon this moribund magazine

And its liberal editrix?

No subject is taboo, no line can be drawn

Nothing's sacred, no Teaching unchallenged

And if you dare to tell them they’re writing into oblivion

They’ll say you’re a fundamentalist

Tabula delenda est!

The intelligensia ain't that intelligent

Because they’re losing readers by the weeks, months, years

And its obvious they’re best years are spent

Tabula delenda est!

And we wonder where all of the Catholics went

They either lapsed or died of boredom readin' this nauseatin'

Excuse for the Catholic press!

An insult to the energy Cardinal Vaughan spent

On a Catholic journal called The Tablet

That would explain Catholicism rather than end up in schism

That would be loyal to Christ to the end

Now we get articles by Bobby Mickens wishing that our

Beloved Pope was dead

But who'll be Bobby’s successor?

And who's a rank outsider?

Have a word with Archbishop Vincent

Living proof for the Doctrine of Original Sin

But at least in Adam and Eve’s defence

Although they picked from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

At least they knew the difference

More than we can say for…

Tabula delenda est!

The barely beating heart of the Catholic Establishment

When will the Archbishop of Westminster tell Catherine Pepinster

She's non dignus of her monthly pay cheque

Tabula delenda est!
What kind of Catholic does this weekly represent?
Not the ones who adhere to the Magisterium
You'll find them all on the internet

Tabula delenda est!

Are you wondering where all of the Catholics went?

Their faith collapsed, possibly, when they swallowed the Suppository

Implausibly, bitter Tablet

Tabula delenda est!
Why not consider reading the Herald instead?

The Pill's dwindling readership's still cryin’ over Humanae Vitae

So they read The Tablet

Tabula delenda est!
Let's burn copies of The Tablet 'til there's no Tablets left
And then return to the Church to adore Our Blessed Lord
In the Most Holy Sacrament

Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda est!

Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda
Tabula delenda est!

Why Do They Keep Banking?

2012-01-29T15:49:00.007Z

Daniel Knowles today writes...

'Since starting at RBS in 2008, Mr Hester has been paid something like £4.8 million in basic pay, before we even consider his bonuses. Surely he has something better to do with all that money than carrying on working as a banker?'

I think I'd consider retiring after £4.8 million as well, but then I guess I don't have the Protestant work ethic.

The Church does provide us with an actual answer to the question of why no amount of money is ever enough for Mr Hester, but it would be uncharitable to say it. Sorry, I should correct that. It's not just any money. It's your money. RBS was bailed out by the taxpayer in the financial crisis. We must keep reminding ourselves that the economic crisis was caused by men and women on disabled living allowance in council estates. I need to fix my van and start a small business. Any chance of a loan, Mr Hester? No? Thought not. You see, no amount of money is ever enough for these guys. Also, important to remember that the huge welfare bill is the fault of those claiming housing benefit. It has nothing at all to do with the rent prices themselves, which are by no means inflated by landlords asking for £170 a week for a 1 bed flat in Brighton in which you can barely swing a cat. That's just the 'market rate', much like there exists a 'market rate' for Mr Hester.

Christian Art for Sale in Brighton

2012-01-29T15:33:00.005Z

I went for a walk (I nearly typed a welk) in Brighton yesterday and popped into an artists shop where he sells his art. He's called Daniel Laurence and one thing that I liked was his Psalm typography which he has put onto canvas. The one in his shop is quite large. You can see his website here. The Psalm typography is simple but very pretty I think. I asked whether he would like to use the Community Centre as a place to promote his art (a donation) or he could sell it there, like they do in pubs with a price tag and the name of the artist. He said he was open to the suggestion. I don't know whether its a bit Protestant to have stuff like this up in the community centre or not, but I just thought the simplicity of it was quite beautiful. Perhaps he could do one in Latin! I know that the AA group that meets has a serenity prayer. A nice big psalm would be nice for them as the whole premise of the AA thing is that people seek the help of a 'higher power' to overcome addiction to alcohol. Anyway, I thought I'd just post it up because I told Daniel that it was "unusual" to see any Christian art in "Godless" Brighton and that it was nice to see that faith in the art world was not totally dead. Nice chap and it seems he is selling these things at reasonable prices.

The Gambler

2012-01-26T22:46:00.001Z

With President Obama making his intentions for religious freedom, especially for the Catholic Church in the US, abundantly clear, the question is, has he overplayed his hand, or revealed his hand too early?

In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party always cosied up to the Catholic voters up North just in time for the election. Once in office of course, they'd behave as if the Catholic vote was toilet paper, but strategically, you would call this sound politics.

It seems as if President Obama is gambling on the sentiment in the US being virulently pro-abortion and gay marriage, even to the point of declaring war on the Catholic Church. His plans, in the run up to the election, have drawn criticism even from Bishops and Priests hitherto seen as incredibly liberal and friendly to the administration. Though I dare say there is a culture shift going on still in America towards sex, sexuality, marriage and abortion, a lot of Americans are very frightened of the federal government removing liberty from States, Churches or anyone apart from terrorists. Has he misread the American public? Does he not understand the American psyche or soul or has America turned the page on religious freedom? And if the American public care about the issue will there be a Republican candidate like Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or even Ron Paul, who will stand up to the Obama plan? I expect the Republican party to elect Mitt Romney, lose the election and hand over the Executive to a rabid enemy of liberty and the Church for another four years. If that happens, America will most likely crumble and fall one way or another.

Catholic Voices Poll

2012-01-26T21:40:00.007Z

I have a Twitter account but I don't want to get involved in the incessant online tit-for-tat that I see flying between various Catholic Voices and various Catholic bloggers who are not in Catholic Voices and who tweet about it a great deal.

I'm sure readers are aware that I'm generally suspicious of any activity organised by Austen Ivereigh, but I'm not going to go on a massive rant about it and prejudice is always ugly. The mud slinging on Twitter is ugly, but I get the feeling that what is being fought over is truth, or the Truth. Even the great Councils of the Church have seen strong disagreements over the truth. The difference is that in the Councils the victors emerge in the end and something is definitely settled. I won't go on.

However, I do wonder what UK Catholics familiar with the blogs think about the project and especially with regard to the involvement of a number of Catholic bloggers. On Twitter the accusation that I see banded around is that Austen Ivereigh saw the Catholic blogs as a problem and now some bloggers have got involved in the project something has changed and critics see those bloggers as having been co-opted by the Catholic Establishment. I'm interested in how readers of this blog would answer the poll question in the sidebar. Comments on this post are closed. If you want to comment, comment in the poll. There's an error in the question title with overuse of the word 'have'...apologies for that. You get the gist.

For Those Unsure of What's Down the Road...

2012-01-23T17:27:00.002Z

"You are looking for Gay Marriage Avenue. For Gay Marriage Avenue turn left onto Cockspur Street. Go forward for 500 metres to...Whitehall. You have arrived at your destination. For Civil Partnerships Lane, Blessington, go 4 kilometres west to...Soho. For Care Pathway go to...Liverpool Street..."

Abortion Ads II

2012-01-22T15:53:00.005Z

'You want it, you want it, you want it, you want it, you want it, you want it, you want it, you want it...buy it!'

Ker-ching!

'You don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it, you don't want it...let us kill it!'

Ker-ching!

If you want to know why these adverts are in the pipeline, then remember that in 2009, according to the BPAS, there was a 3.2% fall in abortions in the United Kingdom. In 2010, there was a slight rise of 0.3%, but, that is a rise presumably of the drop of the previous year. Last year's stats are yet to be published, but perhaps there is a sense of alarm in abortion clinics that 'business' is not thriving as well as it did and therefore revenue is dropping. Why do companies advertise again? In the hope of bolstering revenue is the answer. Which celebrities are going to come forward to endorse their advertising campaign? If they can't find anyone to endorse it, the question is...why not, I wonder?

Abortion Ads

2012-01-21T23:49:00.009Z

Advertising works on the central premise that certain techniques employed in the media can persuade you to buy something or influence you to believe that you want something.

So, for example, Lynx are famous for selling their brand of deodorants because men want sex. 'Buy Lynx, get sex!' is the message.

Abortion adverts, on the other hand are trying to persuade the target audience that they do not want something. That 'thing' is, of course, a baby.

Marie Stopes and BPAS are charities, you could object, and so charities do not sell 'products'. No, what charities do is they try to persuade people to give money to help people in need.

Notice that what Marie Stopes and BPAS are doing falls into neither of the above categories. They are neither offering a product because people want it or desire it (it is the baby in their womb they do not want, they do not want the 'product' itself), nor are they asking people to donate to a good cause such as feeding the starving in the Horn of Africa.

You could object, then...

'Well, do not people buy pain relief tablets from companies because they do not want a headache or backache?'

That would be a valid objection except for the fact that these are not charities, they are companies, so Marie Stopes and BPAS should not be given chartitable status on these grounds. Not to mention the fact that those objectors would be giving equivalence to a headache or a backache that the audience do not want and a baby that the audience do not want.

You could then object...

'Well, what about BUPA?'

They offer health cover and none of us want to be unhealthy, we just need health cover. That is true, but then BUPA are a company, not a charity. Secondly, they are selling their product or service because even though none of us want to be unhealthy, BUPA are offering us health cover. We don't want to be unhealthy, but we do want health. It is a positive. It is something we want - health cover. None of this can be said for abortion, since what is not wanted is not health in this instance, but the desire is instead a negative. The desire is: 'I do not want...a baby'. Marie Stopes and BPAS are there to help you not have something - a baby. That said, just because that is the case it does not mean that their advertising will not be effective in terms of generating 'business'. After all, 'business' is what they are interested in.

The objection could then be raised...

'Ah, but I go with BUPA because I do not want this illness, this disease or this cancer.'

Well, BUPA may be able to cure an illness or a disease or a cancer, or they may not be able to at all. They may be able only to offer you nursing in an illness, rather than cure it and they will provide a better service than the NHS, but are we then saying that a baby is an illness, that a baby is a disease, or a pregnancy a cancer? Why then, is for everyone a cancer a cancer, but to some a baby is a joyful arrival, but others a disaster waiting in the wings? I've never heard anyone leap for joy on the news that they have cancer.

The next objection could be:

'Well, women just need abortions.'

That is not true. We're not talking about toilet paper or sanitary towels here. They are objective needs or necessities. Some women who are pregnant believe they need an abortion for numerous and varied reasons, none of which are morally justifiable. If a woman needs a heart transplant a doctor can examine and assess that woman and assess the need for a transplant. Objectively, there may be a need to preserve life. An abortion on the other hand is an action taken by a nurse or doctor according to what the patient believes she needs, or rather, does not want or need - a baby. Whatever you believe the unborn child to be, it is not a tumour.

Finally, the objection to be raised would surely be:

'Well, who said there were any rules to advertising?'

Well, if that is the case, then why bother with a Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP)? If there really are no rules to advertising, then may I suggest that these two committees are scrapped within the next year?

I know how chomping at the bit Catholic Voices and the Bishops Conference of England and Wales are about this and even though the above are the thoughts of a poor simpleton, either are most welcome to employ these arguments in their forthcoming robust media defense of the unborn and of the Catholic Faith.

And I know Durex advertise condoms because people don't want babies or STIs. The Catholic Church does not support condom adverts either. This is not because the Catholic Church believes that STIs are good. The Catholic Church believes that STIs are prevented through chastity or a monogamous, exclusive sexual relationship in marriage between a man and a woman. The Church's position is that if you do not want a baby so much that you find yourself using a condom in order to prevent conception, then do not have sex, since the sexual act between a man and a woman is by its nature ordered towards both union ("the two have become one flesh") and procreation ("Go forth and multiply"). Pardoxically, I believe, the Church's position is that if you do not want children and you are married and reject co-operating in God's creation of new life then you are thwarting God's good purpose to create new life ("Go forth and multiply"). The difficulty in the Church's teaching for all of us (nobody said the teaching was easy) centres around what we want and what God wants and us either accepting or rejecting God's will with His grace.*

* On this last paragraph, I am totally open to being corrected by those faithful to the Magisterium of Holy Church. What a minefield!

"Literally Unconscionable"

2012-01-21T16:14:00.002Z

Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan of the Archdiocese of New York

Beware, readers, this post contains strong language which some reader may find offensive.

The US Cardinal-elect Timothy Dolan has condemned as "literally unconsionable" President Barack Obama's plan to force religious institutions to comply with the Government's birth control bill by 2013. Obama, eh. He's not the Antichrist, he's just a very naughty boy!

In other news, Fr Ray Blake of St Mary Magdalen Church, Brighton, has condemned the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) who are, in his words, 'to allow abortionists to advertise tearing a child limb from limb in its mother's womb on television and radio.'

Strong language, indeed - uncompromising, hard-hitting, Catholic, truth. But if you think that is hard-hitting, wait until our Bishops fight back against the news that abortion ads on TV are going to be as acceptable to the viewing public as Persil ads or the news that the Wellcome Trust are pouring £600 million pounds into 3-way biological parenting out of human existence mitochondria DNA disordered embryos. Tom Chivers clearly thinks that when Dr Josef Mengele tried this kind of experimentation on children he was insanely evil, but when modern day scientists do this on embryos, well, they're not human so it doesn't matter. Mr Chivers may not think so, but to our Bishops this is moral evil and they are most certainly not afraid to speak out!

Oh yes! Watch out BCAP! Watch out! Our Bishops are onto you and any minute now either they or the Catholic Voices team are going to be so angry that they're going to say something very, very obliquely nuanced that is going to leave both you and the Catholic faithful feeling both a little deflated and more than a little confused! For the Bishops not to speak out against such evil is surely "literally unconscionable".

In other news, the 'Magic Circle' is said to be in disarray after Paul Daniels cut his finger off with a circular saw when a recent trick went awry. Catholic commentators suggest that now could be the time for the Holy Father to seize the moment while the circle is impaired.

The Kids

2012-01-21T02:25:00.001Z

For years the Church has been trying to get down with the kids...

Now is the time for the Church to take the kids up to Heaven.

Funny How Times Change...

2012-01-20T18:29:00.004Z

Fr Ray Blake has picked up on Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith's post for The Catholic Herald on the Crusades. Apparently, this new BBC series is not as concerned with 'black legend' as previous attempts by the mass media to portray or rather distort the hisstory of the Crusades.

Unlike the recent war in Iraq, the Crusades began in defense of the Holy Places and the Chrisitian pilgrims. In Iraq, on the other hand, Christians are fleeing in their thousands in the wake of 'democratisation', which leads us nicely onto a local charity working from St Mary Magdalen.

This afternoon we had Brighton Voices in Exile in the parish community centre. Funny how times change. The Voices in Exile charity gives food, advice and practical assistance to asylum seekers from various parts of the World.

Most if not all have no access to the state benefits system and many are trying to appeal against their ordered expulsion from the United Kingdom. Whatever you read in The Daily Mail, it isn't the whole story. Voices in Exile this afternoon hosted a meal for their voices. Obviously, given that they are asylum seekers, many destitute, BVIE have a high proportion of peole from Africa and the Middle East, so there is a real mixture of religions going on there - a veritable melting pot. Possibly the majority are Muslims, some are Catholic, some are Coptic and some evangelical Christians, a minority of atheists/agonistics I guess. I expect it is quite diverse. War is over, at least in Brighton, and it seems that a Catholic Church is at the heart of reaching out to all in need, regardless of whether they are Muslim or Christian. I think the Holy Father would be glad to see St Mary Magdalen hosting some really quite generous caritas in veritate.

I've got some spare time on my hands, as readers know, and so I'm planning to dedicate some time to brightening the centre up with flowers, soft lighting and nice pictures on the wall. Looking at it from the angle of someone wanting to hire a space, it looks terribly austere. I know what you're thinking. Alright, maybe some cushions, as well and a small low maintenance fish tank. It would be nice to make the place feel more homely and welcoming. I'm planning to do an Adult Teaching in the Lifelong Learning Sector course (another course) and who knows, maybe one day I can hire out the community hall myself and do some teaching. The Voices today said that they appreciate the fact that the centre is starting to look a little more warm and welcoming and the heating was even on today thanks be to God and boiler repair man. In the Middle Ages the Church was at war with Muslims. Now, we are feeding them in our community centres. Funny how times change...

There is much to celebrate this year at St Mary Magdalen's, as not only has Fr Blake received the great news that Mother Riccarda's cause is going very well indeed, but also we have celebrations to mark the 150th anniversary of the opening of St Mary Magdalen Church in 1862, so I am hoping that the community centre will host some parish events this year too. Say a prayer for the parish community centre that it serves Christ and the community to the Glory of God and say a prayer for the Voices.

Catholic Herald Morning Must Read

2012-01-20T01:18:00.001Z

Roadkill

William Oddie has written a piece for The Catholic Herald suggesting that despite his unwavering belief that conspiracies have no place in the Catholic Church, he is starting to wonder why the US Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter has been given a Church from which to build their mission, yet the English counterpart, the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, is still awaiting a Church headquarters.

Who knows what's down the road for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham? Well, unless as Oddie suggests, Rome takes action, the answer is...roadkill! It would be nice if down the road was a Church for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham but hey...accidents will happen!

'Greater Love Hath No Man Than This...'

2012-01-19T16:33:00.005Z

Tom Chivers today adds his contribution to the growing press commentary on the Costa Concordia cruise liner disaster off the coast of Italy.

In his article, Tom tries (pretty desperately in my opinion) to argue that a captain of a ship leaving his passengers to their fate and dashing into the nearest lifeboat is in-keeping with evolutionary thought. But equally, Tom argues that bravery and self-sacrifice is also.

I'm not going to be the first to cast a rock at the cruise liner's now publicly humiliated and presumably rather guilt-ridden captain, since my actions were I in his position would depend upon whether I was open to the grace of God on that day, or indeed not. I'd like to think I would man up and 'face the music', so to speak, but with human nature as it is, I simply don't know whether I'd step up to the plate and put the needs of my passengers first.

The difference between the actions of the Titanic's captain and the captain of the Costa Concordia in response to a huge emergency involving life-saving and self-sacrificial behaviour is, I guess, not so much because we live in an age in which Christianity is sinking, but because what Christianity brought with it is disappearing. We do not know the personal faith of the captain of the Titanic. All we do know is that his was an age of duty. Presumably, he would not have thought of abandoning his ship and passengers because it was an age in which duty was a fundamental part of being a member of society. It was duty that led men to fight World Wars and it was duty that led captains to go down with their ships with bravery. To them, to be known as the captain who abandoned his passengers would be a fate worse than death itself.

Tom argues that bravery, courage and self-sacrifice can be evolutionary traits in mankind. There is, however, no getting past the fact that evolutionary thought does place 'survival of the fittest' at the top of man's all-round agenda. Tom spends plenty of time in his article considering whether Darwinian thought and self-sacrifice are as incompatible as one would first think. He spends far less time wondering whether Darwinian thought in this case has the vagaries of human nature down to a tee. The captain of the ship was only doing what modern man, stripped of the chief civilising cultural force of Western societies would do: save himself because the rights of the self are the rights that matter the most and to hell with all the others. Readers could say, 'You can't blame today's society for this man's actions. He alone is culpable!'. Possibly not, we are all individually accountable for our actions, indeed, but today's society hardly helps the cause of selflessness, does it?

I've been reading Caroline Farrow's blogposts on the joys and difficult hardships of pregnancy and it really rams home the crux of the abortion debate, not only because a lot of men and women do not understand just how demanding upon the self pregnancy can be (information which BPAS and Marie Stopes are doubtlessly all too willing to avail to clients), but because it takes real guts, courage and self-sacrifice to place the needs of the child in the womb and outside of the womb first. Similarly, in a bygone age, abortion was culturally unthinkable. Today it still carries stigma despite its legality, but the duty of motherhood, the duty itself, has been eroded and perhaps destroyed and replaced with an ideology of personal rights that trump duty on a societal level every time. That's just one of the reasons why abortion is so destructive.

We can see this also in the arguments of the pro-gay marriage cause. The 'right' to gay marriage must be defended and promoted because this 'right' destroys the duty of all to defend natural marriage between a man and a woman with the desire to bring into their family and human society, new life. Without families society implodes, dies, becomes sterile and is bound for destruction. The Holy Father has recently said as much. We can even say that at the time when the Titanic sank, if a man got a woman pregnant, he would be encouraged by his family to marry her and if he didn't then he had neglected his duty. Nowadays, he would be ticked off because he had neglected his 'duty' to wear a condom (which might just break anyway).

It would be nice to think that the captain of the ship, had he been a faithful Catholic, would remain on board because of his faith ('the first shall be last', 'greater love hath no man than this' etc) but we know from our own lives and the lives of even the Saints that we are perfectly capable of denying Our Lord, once, twice, even thrice and of betraying Him. No, the difference is that we are now in the age of rights and personal freedom and if we have 'evolved' in the last 50 years then we have 'evolved' out of the age of duty. Presumably, the manufacturers of both cruise liners did not believe either iceberg or rock could 'sink the unsinkable'. What the modern makers of the Costa Concordia might not have considered is that the new age of unbridled personal freedom leads us men, capable of moments of great bravery and ghastly cowardice to 'think the unthinkable'.

We can only assume that the reason why the Western societies are throwing Christianity out of the pram is because the law and love of God requires us to place restrictions upon our own personal freedoms, to distrust our own self-generated impulses and, with His grace, to freely choose God and the service of others, above or instead of self. Now that these societies have thrown Christianity out of the pram, what is it left with? The answer is the Costa Concordia and a captain abandoning his passengers to their watery fate. May the souls of all who have died in the sea disaster rest in peace and the captain find forgiveness and peace from the Lord. As for Tom Chivers's article...Well Tom, I must say I disagree. The captain, in Darwinian terms, was only doing his evolutionary 'duty'.

I Missed This...

2012-01-19T12:01:00.001Z

I missed this lecture by Archibishop Vincent Nichols, hosted by The Tablet, in October last year. I found it on The Tablet's website.

I'd never seen or heard the Editor of the dissident organ before. Nice to be able to put a face to a name. The lecture itself is worth a listen, but is it right for such a dissenting magazine to be given this endorsement from England and Wales's highest ranking Bishop?

The lecture was called 'Holiness Today: The Formation of the Human Heart'.

Fundamentalists

2012-01-17T00:50:00.000Z

Apparently the Latin word 'fundamentum', translates into English as the word, 'foundation'. I find it quite interesting that the translation is 'foundation' because once you think about it, it starts to make sense why Catholics loyal to the Pope and the Magisterium are called 'fundamentalists'.

We are loyal to our foundations. The foundations of the Church were laid by Christ on the Rock of St Peter and were built on century by century by Peter's successors and the successors of the Apostles. It ties in with the sense of continuity that the Holy Father is trying to build on the foundations of those who preceded him. So, being a 'Catholic fundamentalist' shouldn't be so terrible. It means that you believe in the foundations, the continuity and the Holy Tradition of the Church.

You could argue that as 'Catholic fundamentalists' we are only being faithful to our foundations if we say that sacred music didn't arrive in 1960s and say that we believe the Holy Father is right when he says that Mass being celebrated facing East makes liturgical sense. 'Protestant fundamentalists' with their theology steeped in Reformation thought are being loyal to their foundations. 'Islamic fundamentalists' who wage war and murder in the name of Islam, really, are only being loyal to their foundations too. Religious fundamentalism is a dirty phrase today, but it really depends on your foundations. The countless martyrs of the Church tell us that when they faced shedding their own blood for Christ and His Church, they were being loyal to their foundations. I think that's as loyal to your foundations as you possibly can be.

Great News

2012-01-16T20:10:00.001Z

The Telegraph reports...

'A file on Mother Riccarda Beauchamp Hambrough has been sent to the Vatican to be studied by historians and theologians. Her cause for sainthood was opened in July 2010 by the Diocese of Rome along with that of Sister Katherine Flanagan, marking the first phase of the investigations.

In a significant development, the causes of both women have together been sent to the Holy See’s Congregation of Causes for Sainthood, marking a significant, but early, step forward in the long road to becoming saints.

If it is concluded that the pair lived lives of “heroic virtue”, the Pope will declare the London-born nuns to be “Venerable” and the search will begin for two miracles to first declare them Blessed and then saints.

Both nuns belonged to a revived order of Bridgettine sisters nicknamed “the hot cross bun nuns” because of the distinctive crosses covering the tops of their wimples. Mother Riccarda helped to save the lives of about 60 Jews by hiding them from the Nazis in her Rome convent, the Casa di Santa Brigida.

She was born in 1887 and was baptised in St Mary Magdalene’s Church, Brighton, at the age of four years after her parents converted to the Catholic faith.

Yesterday Father Ray Blake, the parish priest of St Mary’s welcomed the progress of her cause. “I think it is fantastic,” he said. “Here is Brighton we are following her cause with great enthusiasm and see her very much as our local saint. When I tell people at Mass that that her cause is going forward I’m sure that they will be overjoyed.”

While Mother Riccarda spent most of her life in Rome, eventually becoming the head of the order, Sister Katherine was at the forefront of efforts to open Bridgettine convents around the world some 400 years after the Reformation nearly wiped out the order.

Judith Whitehead, a niece of Sister Katherine, said she was astonished that the first phase had concluded so quickly. “I am surprised that it has moved to the next stage in my lifetime,” said Mrs Whitehead, 73, of Shaftesbury, Dorset, who had given evidence to the initial inquiry. “I thought that the progression of looking into her life would take about 10 years,” she said. “It is amazing to have someone in your family who was so revered by everybody … the Bridgettines obviously think that she is going to become a saint.”

Father John Henry, the parish priest of St Gregory’s Church, Earlsfield, south London, where Sister Katherine was baptised, said: “To have a possible saint from the parish is wonderful.” Born Florence Catherine in Clerkenwell in 1892, Sister Katherine trained as a dressmaker before she left the family home for Rome at 19 years with the aim of becoming a nun.

She went on to become the first prioress of new convents in Iver Heath, Buckinghamshire; Lugano, Switzerland; and Vadstena, Sweden - where she died in 1941. A year after Sister Katherine joined, the future Mother Riccarda - born Madaleina Catherine - also journeyed to Rome.

Because of her talent and intelligence she soon became deputy of the Order, called the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget, and remained at the mother house in the Italian capital. When the Nazis took control in Rome in 1943, and began to round up the Jews of Rome for deportation to Auschwitz, Mother Riccarda risked her own life by smuggling fugitives into her convent. Some Jews who gave evidence to the initial inquiry spoke of Mother Riccarda's kindness, saying they nicknamed her “Mama”. She died in Rome in 1966 at the age of 79 years.'

To read Simon Caldwell's article for The Daily Mail, click here. Keep praying for her cause. It is worthy of note that the Mail article has attracted just four comments so far. It just goes to show that examples of the kindness and holiness of Catholics isn't worth much attention or comment, but obviously, if Mother Riccarda had been exposed as a brutal nun who'd physically abused those who took refuge in the convent, then that would attract far more comment. The only negative thing that the Mail commenters can say is that the Church has no power (in their eyes) to recognise Saints and Blesseds. That's the way of the World, folks...

Singing at the Office

2012-01-16T14:37:00.003Z

I've been looking at the Little Office and wondered what the hymns to Our Lady sound like. Some of them I know already, but this one is new to me and I must say this chap sings it rather beautifully.

I've noticed that on the application form for helping out at the homeless shelter that St Joseph's Church are organising in collaboration with other Brighton churches volunteers are required for a 'prayer team'. Of what does the 'prayer team' consist I wonder? I hope and pray that it isn't like what Protestant churches offer when they feed the homeless, asking if anyone wants anyone to come and 'pray over them' then there is a prayer team at the ready. I'm not sure whether I'll be doing anything with the shelter project, but if you were going to introduce those not used to Christian prayer to the beauty of prayer, you could do worse than sing the hymn above.

'Shine Jesus Shine' could well scare people (including me) off but Gregorian chant is soothing introduction to prayer. The hymn above is humble, plaintive, mournful - that's the place where many of the homeless are at.

At Tale of Two Homilies

2012-01-16T12:42:00.003Z

St Andrew: "But I don't have an NVQ in Social Care!"

I went to Mass twice yesterday once in the morning and once in the evening.

The Gospel reading was about the calling of St Andrew...

'The next day again John stood and two of his disciples. And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak: and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turning and seeing them following him, saith to them: What seek you? Who said to him: Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou? He saith to them: Come and see. They came and saw where he abode: and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about the tenth hour. And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John and followed him. He findeth first his brother Simon and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.'

The two priests both took up the theme of 'come and see' the Lord, but what was striking was the contrasting ways in which the priests explained how Jesus might be sought or found. For one priest, Jesus is to be found in the place where He lives, namely, the Church He founded. For this priest, Jesus Our Lord is to be found in the Tabernacle, in the Sacraments of Confession and in the Most Holy Eucharist.

For the other priest, Jesus is to be found in those feeding the hungry, in the hungry, in those who visit the sick and in the sick. He said that wherever someone was helping the outcast or showing love to a sick person that Jesus was there. No mention was made of the Tabernacle, of the way in which the Lord Jesus comes to us in Confession, taking away our sins as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World and no mention was made of His Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist.

I found it quite interesting that one could go to two different Churches in a day and receive two very different takes on how Jesus can be sought and found. Of course, there is a sense in which both Priests are right, and that knitting the two concepts together would form a whole idea of how the Lord can be seen or discovered. However, it seemed to illustrate the different emphases of different Priests. For one, the emphasis is upon Salvation - that our deepest need is for salvation and that the Lord is to be found in the Sacraments of Holy Church.

For the other, the Lord Jesus is portrayed as a kind man who helps poor and sick people. It seems that it is the latter emphasis which has dominated the Church in the post-Concilliar era. This is the image of Christ that comes to the fore - the Christ who urges us to do good or be good people. However, for Priests, knowing the human condition so well and the inbuilt self-destruct button that we all rather enjoy pressing from time to time, the emphasis should really be on Christ as both Judge and Saviour. I don't really understand how the Church's social teaching has come to almost usurp the central message of the Church for centuries. Of course we need Priests to remind us of the need to be kind, caring and compassionate to the poor and sick, but above all, we need Priests to remind us that our Souls are dear to God, that we are not our 'own property', as St Paul said in the reading and that Christ didn't come to make the World a better place. Christ came to save the World from sin and everlasting death.

By the way it seems it didn't work out for Jason at his friend's house. He's back in a car park, so keep praying for him.

We've Moved On...Again...

2012-01-15T22:58:00.001Z

I enjoy reading Brendan O'Neill's often cynical but frequently 'on the mark' assessments of the modern liberal agenda.

This week he posted on the new movie 'Shame' which depicts the issue of sex addiction. O'Neill, who was apparently raised Catholic, is rather scathing in his piece on 'sex addicts' desire for sympathy and understanding and especially in their seeking help from psychotherapy for their condition. Really, for some modern day addictions, psychotherapists have becomes secular replacements for Priests.

I must say that there is a certain lack of compassion in O'Neill's piece, but he is right to point out that the liberal cause enjoys creating new language for the brokenness of the human condition which was and is still (and will be until the Lord's return) the natural territory of the Church. So he says that good old fashioned lust has been transformed into 'sex addiction'. Good old fashioned gluttony has been transformed into food addiction. Presumably good old fashioned avarice is 'money addiction' unless we're talking about bankers and suddenly people can be seen as greedy gits and all our wrath can be focused on one group of terrible sinners.

What O'Neill doesn't point to is any kind of remedy for our fragile fallen human nature. It's either 'pull your socks up' or 'stay in the gutter' and accept it. He dismisses psychotherapy as pointless and pathetic, describing sex addicts as 'losers'. Well, we know how much God loves a loser, as well as a trier.

Few sinners and few Saints would deny that our sins, the cause of so much of our grief to ourselves and others, are, by their very nature addictive. It is in our nature to pull the juicy fruit from the tree and 'once you pop, you can't stop'. Even some murderers become addicted to murder - hence the serial killer. The Church is the expert of the human condition, however, not Freud. Confessors know only too well the rich tapestry of human sins and foibles; strange sins, small sins, huge sins and Christ is present in the Priest who absolves us and removes our faults as far 'as the East is from the West'. The remedy the Church has always preached is Confession, the Holy Eucharist, penance, prayer, fasting and almsgiving.

Some would say, 'Why bother going to Confession with the same old list?' or 'Confession is a cop out to allow people to keep carrying on with their vices'. The last one is a regular criticism aimed by non-Catholics or the lapsed at those practising the Faith, struggling to overcome our sins and falling from the State of Grace. I haven't seen the film 'Shame' and I doubt I will see it, but even those with a liberal mindset would perhaps agree that what is lacking most in such portrayals is the sense of redemption - or a positive outcome. Liberals can call sin what they like, but ultimately to deny its existence is to deny the flip side of the fall and the loss of our innocence and purity - the saving work of the Most Holy Redeemer and a Love that won't let go of us even as we draw our dying breath. The destruction that our vices and sins cause are pretty much solid Hollywood fodder, but what is lacking is redemption. Perhaps someone will correct me, but we haven't really had much redemption in modern culture since Graham Greene died.

Again, there is this sense that the liberal agenda likes to pretend that we've 'moved on' from sin and the language of sin. When sin rears its head, it has to be given a different name, lest it be recognised for what it is. The tragedy of liberalism is not merely the overlooking of sin or merely calling it something else. That is tragic, of course, for modern man, but what is more tragic is that for modern man caught in so many snares and entanglements, the only option appears to be therapy. It means that overcoming personal addiction is something that can only be achieved through personal effort - 'working on yourself'. How joyless that must be! Not only is such an attitude to sin doomed to failure, because we are helpless without God's grace, but it means that what people really want in their heart of hearts in terms of redemption, forgiveness, healing and to know that, despite our weaknesses, we are loved by God, will for some never be known.

While liberals would contest that we have moved on from the old-fashioned language of sin, that sin is an 'irrelevance' it is an ever-present reality that we have not 'moved on' from sin itself. Therapy for sex addiction aptly exposes the hypocrisy of the liberal position on sexual activity. This is what we're teaching children in schools. The message is that all kinds of sexual activity with whoever is fun and recreational, until you're addicted to promiscuous sex, up the duff at 14, suffering some STI, being marched down to an abortion clinic or you're a bit older, cruising the gay scene and contract HPV or HIV.

Furthermore, recourse to therapy for 'sex addiction' is not something that would be necessarily widely promoted in society since society promotes promiscuity. It is something that people do when they have realised that actually their sin is a really big problem, that they realise that they are enslaved to it and it now dominates their whole lives. There is a sense that someone would only go for therapy for sex addiction once they realise that they make relationships only to break them - that there is a destructive tendency in it that leaves them feeling totally out of control.

A commenter said in a comment on a recent post that I'm only a Catholic because of guilt over my sexual orientation. That would be a vast over-simplication of the story of my soul but it wouldn't be a mere footnote either. The sin that really led me into the Catholic Church was selfishness and the effects of that on me and my relationships with others, but I'd be lying if I said that sexuality played no role. Have I suffered, or do I suffer Catholic guilt over my sexuality? Yes, but what liberals fail to understand is that guilt is actually healthy. You know, it is, after all, a sign that you have a sacred Conscience and it is that which is in some way disturbed by sin. That said, I don't beat myself up about my sexual orientation. I accept that I have an instrinsic moral disorder and feel quite at home in the Catholic Church because it is the place for disordered persons to be, what with some moral disorder or another affecting the lives of every single person on the entire planet. Saying to a man who has same-sex attraction that he's only Catholic because he is attracted to men is like saying an alcoholic is only a Catholic because he's attracted to drink. Of course, we're sinners. We're weak and human.

The one thing that comes across from commenters is that they imagine that we Catholics, whatever our sexuality, are terribly twisted and embittered creatures constantly denying ourselves and becoming miserable and despising others as a result. I think their vision of Catholicism is one steeped in joylessness and self-loathing like Calvinism or something. The opposite is true. We are joyful because we are a people who, though in highly frequent need of God's mercy and forgiveness, are shown God's infinite mercy and forgiveness.

It is in that sense that we are liberated people, far more 'liberated' than those who welcome sin with open arms thinking it will answer our needs, because the power of sin over our lives is frequently broken by God's love and mercy. In that sense we can see the wounds of others and the addictions and vices of others and know of our own need for mercy at the same time so we are set free to love sinners and see sinners as God sees them because we know that God loves us, despite our failings. The psalmist says, 'Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.' We are the 'blessed', a word which also suggests happiness.

There are many Catholics who can say that there is something, some sin that dominates their life but God's mercy reaches down to them and there are Catholics who can say that while they still struggle with their sins generally (that's all of us), God's grace even healed a particular sin that overwhelmed them. Each person's story is different and we all follow a hard road made sweet by the Lord Jesus. The truth is that there is no sin, no vice or presumably addiction that God's grace cannot conquer in this life if we are open to His grace, though quite what the Lord wants to do with my blogging addiction is a mystery. I've a multitude of other addictions, of course. Lent isn't too far away...gulp!

Quando Quando Quando

2012-01-14T17:07:00.000Z

A great Latin love song.

Starlings Over St Peter's Basillica, Rome

2012-01-14T16:29:00.001Z

I'm a big fan of starlings as any readers will have guessed as they are now all over my blog in my latest redesign. Here they are over the Eternal City. There's also some fantastic footage of starlings over Rome in this documentary called Earthflight on IPlayer. The stunning flying formations, called murmurations, of the starlings are able to help them to evade capture by predators who want them for fodder, but, aside from that, God commanded that they do this kind of incredible formation thing because by doing it they give Him praise and glory. Benedicite sturnus vulgaris Domino!

"We've Moved On..."

2012-01-14T14:23:00.007Z

Souls moving up and souls 'moving on'...

During the week I posted on the publicity drive for homosexual marital unions. I received quite a few comments, some in support of what I'd written and quite a few lengthy comments (so lengthy I don't publish them) from supporters of gay marriage who basically said I was talking gibberish.

I'd like to spend more time answering comments from people who want to take me up on what I write and who write virtual essays on why I am wrong, but I have a life to live and can't stay on the computer constantly answering critiques of my blog from the enemies of the Church.

However, one point which seemed to keep coming up in the criticisms of my post was that all my arguments were imbecilic because the Catholic Church's teaching is irrelevant, gay marriage is none of our business and because society has 'moved on'.

The phrase 'moved on' or 'moving on' is quite attractive. It's a kind of catchphrase for the 'progressive' movement which is liberal in its outlook on human morality. This 'moving on' appeal, this appeal to 'progress' is alluring to every generation, this one no more than the last. It is the seductiveness of this 'moving on' that allowed Mao to achieve the 'great leap forward'. It's about motion and movement, on from something now deemed antiquated into some bright future of promise. Every totalitarian movement has required for society to accept that its project for the human society is a movement forward, a movement onwards, a progression from that which went before. Onwards, that is, but not upwards since to the godless architects of all such movements there is no upwards, there is only onwards.

Every political campaign requires a movement onwards or a rhetorical publicity drive that suggests movement, because electorally speaking, all times are sad, or bad, or mad, the idea of standing still or the idea of continuity is always dismissed as dull and unenlightened. Would anyone get elected if they said, "I promise that if you vote for me, the next five years will be extraordinarily similar to the last five years!" For Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson 'Things Can Only Get Better' because there was no doubt in their minds that 'progress' could be anything other than fantastic news for everyone and everything (including their bank accounts). Years later, where has the 'progress' of the New Labour years got us?

Every political leader that has brought us some form of societal living nightmare, from Mao, to Stalin, to Hitler, even to Blair, has promised a leap forward, using the theme of modernity and the intellectual hubris aroused in every age (because every age is 'modern') by using the language of progress. This could be why Conservative electoral appeals to things like 'back to basics' usually fail. Every age wants change and every age seems to want something 'new' even if, objectively, or dare I say 'empirically', what is proposed in untried, untested and the results highly questionable in outcome. Oh well! Nevermind! Let's do it anyway! Interestingly, Margaret Thatcher's political rhetoric was traditional in terms of the family, marriage and work, but presumably was considered radical because of the chaos of what had preceded it. What was new, with the Baroness, was a strange cocktail of traditional morality (quoting St Francis of Assisi on entering Downing Street) with an ethos which espoused an undiluted and unbridled love of money. Certainly, that's what her admirers thanked her for, even if the frugal Methodist herself was unimpressed by luxury.

Now, however, every political party including Labour, Conservative, Liberal and Green has 'moved on' from 'antiquated' visions of the family, of marriage, children, education and a raft of issues which were previously grounded in what had been handed down. The idea that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children is dismissed because society has 'moved on' from that idea. The idea that IVF is unnatural and that it would be better if we did not 'play God' with human embryoes is 'outmoded' and 'antiquated'. The idea that marriage is the union of man and woman exclusively is 'irrelevant'. Ethical challenges to these issues are dismissed not because a coherent, watertight argument has been posited to dismiss moral objections, but because objectors 'refuse to step into the 21st century'.

Abortion is defended because the language of its proponents is grounded in the 'women's rights' movement of the 1960s, which makes it relatively easy for its proponents to dismiss those who stand up in defense of the unborn child and the women who are victims of the abortion culture as a group of people who refuse to step into the modern age of female reproductive health.

Surely, in every age in which religion is crushed and the voice of the Church is silenced or ignored, the justification for doing this is couched in the appeal of a bright new modern age. Modernity is infallible, of course. So, Stalin crushed the role of the Church in Russia because the Church refused to step into the gruesome 20th century and a new era of Stalinism. Hitler's vision of a glorious German is interesting in as much as so much of his imagery was steeped in German folklore. Yet, there can be no denying that the eviction of God from the public square and the eugenicism of Nazi policy was a product of the modern age with a new vision for humanity which was both socially Darwinian and absurdly utopian.

Every modernity enthralled to its own intrinsic greatnesss blinds itself to even the most basic and fundamental of human truths which have been handed down. Christianity is rejected because 'its so 2,000 years ago'. Well, actually, it isn't. It's only 50 years ago. Britain was a Christian country (albeit Protestant) only 50 years ago. It's really only in the last 40-50 years we can speak of a Britain that has 'moved on' from Christianity.

The new vision for society is founded on a tissue of lies, half-truths and rhetorical flourishes concerning an idol of 'progress' and 'progress' is what is worshipped. It's the golden calf of our age and perhaps every age. Personally, I love electricity, the internet and modern transport, but these are not particularly moral issues. These things do not rock society at its very foundations, they bring society great benefits. The question about whether two men can get married, however, does shake society to its core. Certainly, the question of whether we can destroy nascent life does also. The question of whether we can control by artificial means such natural phenomena as human fertility does as well.

I have little doubt that the Catholic Church will suffer in the course of the 21st century in the name of 'progress'. Should that be the case in the United Kingdom, then comparisons with the martyrdom of the early Christian Church will be nonsensical.

See, what the Apostles died for was a 'new' vision. It was because the message was 'new' that they were killed, silenced, tortured and cast out of their societies. Centuries ago, the message of the Apostles and their successors was new and bold and radical and transformative. The same message of a new life in the Trinity is 'both ancient and new' as St Augustine said, yet it will not be perceived to be 'new' by modern 21st century man because modern 21st century man has 'moved on' from Christianity.

Without doubt, the Church has tried to embrace modernity in every sphere of her mission and the results are dire in every sphere of the Church's mission. With the new liturgical movement growing in strength, perhaps the only thing that can rescue modern man building his life on sand, instead of rock, is the 'shock of the old', for every generation that severes itself from its fundamental roots and foundations withers and dies.

At some point, the wisdom of the Church will prevail both within Her and without because nothing but Our Lord Jesus Christ satisfies the human heart. Outside of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is only illusion, shadows and darkness, no matter whether man calls it 'progress' or not. The Lord has given us free will to love and worship whatever we choose, but only the love and worship of Him can bring us happiness in this life and the life of the World to come. As Lord of History, there can surely be no concept of modern 'progress' that Christ has not both seen and conquered. We are mocked because we refuse to step into the 21st century. Yet, in all seriousness, apart from the technological toys, what is so great about the 21st century? When will we all realise that our deepest desire is not to step into the age into which we are born, but to step into Eternity?

A Nice Email from Opus Dei

2012-01-14T11:16:00.000Z

I received a nice email from a priest of Opus Dei which I post below for the edification of readers.

'I am a priest of Opus Dei, and I have come across your blog entry on Opus Dei with its humorous imagined conversation involving someone being rejected by Opus Dei on account of their being unemployed.

While it is clearly of the essence that anyone who feels called to Opus Dei – a calling which requires a more or less lengthy period of discernment – should have the desire of seeking sanctification in the ordinary circumstances of life, unfortunately such “ordinary circumstances” are increasingly likely these days to involve some time or degree of unemployment.

However, that is not a bar to sanctity: the effort to find a job can itself become a way to God, and there are many things that one can do during the period of unemployment to show one’s love for God “with deeds”, even if no payment is received for them. No one ever claimed that it was a requirement for holiness that one had to have paid remuneration.

Unemployment can be considered as in some way analogous to illness: something which one tries to overcome, but if it is the will of God that it should remain, then it can be accepted and offered as a “pleasing sacrifice”. In fact, the beginnings of Opus Dei are closely associated with the sufferings of the incurably sick in the hospitals of Madrid at the end of the 1920s and early 1930s.

In his book "The Way of the Cross" St Josemaría includes the following consideration: “God is my Father, even though he may send me suffering. He loves me tenderly, even while wounding me. Jesus suffers, to fulfil the Will of the Father... And I, who also wish to fulfil the most holy Will of God, following in the footsteps of the Master, can I complain if I too meet suffering as my travelling companion?”

And as the current Prelate of Opus Dei, Bishop Javier Echevarría, has written, encouraging us to pray for a solution to the grave problem of unemployment: “Men and women of faith should use this situation to improve personally in the practice of virtue, taking extra care of the spirit of detachment, practising rectitude of intention, giving up unnecessary possessions, and so many other things. Besides, we know that we are always in the hands of our Father God, and that if divine providence permits these difficulties, it is so that we can draw good from evil: God writes straight with crooked lines” (Letter of the Prelate, 2 October 2009).
As you may be aware, there is a booklet available on the Opus Dei website entitled "Novena for Work", together with accounts of various favours received.

I wish you every blessing in your own work and activities, and hope they help to bring many people closer to the love of God.

Yours in Christ

Fr Paul Hayward'

Good News and Bad News

2012-01-13T13:00:00.000Z

The good news is that Jason has been taken in by a friend who used to be on the streets. He has agreed to take him in for 3 months with some ground rules. Brave man! It means for the time being Jason lives in Moulescoomb. Deo gratias! Thank you for all who have been praying for him.

The bad news is I didn't wait long enough to receive that news and gave the garage the go-ahead to get the van fixed so the financial drain has been re-opened and I've thrown some more money down it.

A lesson for me to trust in God and the power of the prayers of the Faithful, rather than myself.

“More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of.” Lord Alfred Tennyson

The Latest News on Jason's House

2012-01-12T01:40:00.002Z

My van in happier days...before I owned it...

I have had a couple of very kind emails offering me legal advice on the situation with my van. I appreciated the emails very much but the van situation has moved on and so has the man dwelling within it.

I must say I pretty much crapped myself when I found the letter from the Council on the front of the van and so took the van to the to the nearest repairs garage as a friend had said he would pay for it to get fixed.

The date of the letter warning me of a £1000 fine was January 5th, so I didn't know how much time I had to get it off Preston Park. George had said he was interested in having the van for free but has now baulked at the £704.00 price for getting it back up and running and roadworthy. I don't blame him. The van has caused me nothing but grief ever since I bought it and he now knows that it is something of a drain.

Now I find myself in a moral dilemma. I could scrap the vehicle and receive £300-500 for doing so, with a local scrappage firm. It would be sad to see it go, but it would be a weight off my mind. Having said that, what with the van having become 'emergency temporary housing' for Jason (not that I can get a penny of his housing benefit, unlike proper temporary accommodation) the moral dilemma deepens and takes on soul-weighing significance. So, that's another weight on my mind. The Council might not mind Jason dying from exposure in winter, but personally, I believe that 3 months of homelessness and sleeping in loading bays in Brighton is a pretty hard penance for some 'anti-social behaviour'.

Jason's sleeping on a loading bay in Brighton now with a sleeping bag. He's no access to day-centres or places to keep warm because he's barred from those streets in Brighton. The van wasn't warm, but it had a mattress in it, quilts and a lamp. If I paid for it to get fixed, then I guess he could live there temporarily on a public road, as if I parked it where it was, presumably I'd get fined £1000, unless I were challenge it in court. Personally, I don't fancy my chances against Brighton and Hove City Council in Court, especially if I lose. That would mean a criminal conviction for me for an act of charity.

So, my choice is clear. I either scrap the van and walk home with £300-500 in my pocket (tempting!) or invest £704 into the van with money that I don't have and allow Jason to shelter in it on a public highway in Brighton at night until the Summer, when I'll have to pay out something in the region of £900 for its insurance (possibly more as I and the van are another year older). I live on less than what people get for Jobseekers Allowance. Jason's 'key-worker' has told me that he will not be housed "for at least 3 months" because after years of working with Jason, the Council still believe that a man banned from 44 streets in Brighton and who commits a criminal offense every time he begs is now suddenly going to be coerced into model behaviour. Very rapidly my life is turning into an episode of Only Fools and Horses...and not in a good way. Wodney! You plonker!

If people are interested in helping to fix Jason's house so that he can sleep in it on a Brighton road at night, I'll be posting up exact costings of the repairs later this morning. Perhaps I should have left the blinking van where it was in Preston Park and contested the 'automatic conviction' that would have at some point arrived, but this isn't an activist's publicity stunt to raise awareness of the Council's treatment of campers and travellers.

This is not Dale Farm. This is a man in a van. White van man, if you please. I was sincerely just doing a favour for a friend in a tight spot and the Council have thrown an almighty spanner in the works, if you'll excuse the pun. I don't for a minute believe that I am the answer to Jason's homelessness problem, nor is the van a long term housing solution for Jason. It is just rather hard and cruel on him to pull the rug from under him in terms of shelter more or less immediately after he was evicted from New Steine Mews and I don't want to be on the side of the crucifiers. I want to be on the side of the crucified.

I wrote a new song recently and I think the answer to my moral conundrum in in there somewhere. If you want to help, you're more than welcome. I don't know. Perhaps if we all pray really hard, the Council will relent, but I don't think so. This time they're being really mean...and this time they really mean it. Pray for him. He's not the only man sleeping rough in Brighton and Hove, but its different when you know someone quite well. You know, he's outside 3 minutes away curled up in a sleeping bag on a hard, cold metal floor with only Lady Poverty as his companion. I'm tucked up nice and warm in bed with a cup of milky tea. After a while it gets to you.

Lazarus

When you've got the World it's never enough

And how could it ever be?

And when you think you've got it all sewn up

It will be unravel one day

And if you think that its just 'over and out'

There's nothing more to this World than what you've got

Oh if you think that's what this life's about

You are what you own and a secure bank account

Well if you think the World looks sweet and sound

Then turn it upside down

If you think this World's just turning round and round

In pences and pounds

If you think the victors are proud

If you think the rich wear the crowns

If you think the wealthy are first

Then, pray, where is the rich man?

And where is Lazarus?

Yes, if you think that this World was made for winners

Then why do the Saints

Only pray for sinners

How can you say that your house is forsaken?

I think that you'll find you're very much mistaken!

If you have put your heart into your possessions

Then when your Death comes as it surely will

Who'll welcome you into Heaven?

How can you say that this World is for successes?

When Lazarus is at your gate

Dogs licking his abscesses

How can you say that the World is for successes?

Did Our Blessed Lord walk this Earth

Taking permanent addresses?

The poor are rich, the rich they are poor

Yet there's none so rich as

Lazarus

Get me a Lawyer!

2012-01-09T15:35:00.006Z

I've received a letter posted on my van.

'To: White Transit van
Land: _______________

I, Nick Hibberd, Head of Service, Housing and Social Inclusion, Brighton and Hove City Council, Kings House, Brighton, DO HEREBY GIVE YOU NOTICE that the above land is:

Unoccupied land.

And is within the administrative area of Brighton and Hove Council and that you are residing in vehicles on the said land contrary to Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Therefore, I DO HEREBY DIRECT YOU to leave the said land and remove the above mentioned vehicles and any other property you might have with you on the land,
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT should you fail to comply with this direction as soon as practicable Brighton and Hove Council will apply to Brighton and Hove Magistrates' Court for an Order requiring the removal of the said vehicles and any persons residing in them.

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that should you fail to comply with this direction, or having done so, again enter the said land with a vehicle within the period of THREE MONTHS beginning with the date hereof you will be committing an offence and will be liable for summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Dated this 5th day of January 2012.

Nick Hibberd
Head of Service, Housing and Social Inclusion
Brighton and Hove City Council
Kings House
Grand Avenue
Hove
East Sussex
BN3 2SR

Okay, a little background. A homeless friend is sleeping in my van, declared SORN, parked off-road somewhere in Brighton. Obviously, I'm not going to say where. He was evicted from New Steine Mews BY BRIGHTON AND HOVE CITY COUNCIL, so quite why the 'Social Inclusion' people of Brighton and Hove City Council are complaining to me I have no idea. They expelled him from their own homeless hostel. He has come to me, it's very cold, very wet, very rainy and so I let him sleep in my van at night to take shelter.

Now, the same Council that's thrown him out is complaining to me when I give him shelter! They're not complaining because the van is parked off-road. Their complaining that a homeless person is sheltering in a van at night! I guess, if he just curled up in a sleeping bag in a piss-stinking car park, or slept rough in the park in some bushes in the freezing cold and wet, there would be no complaints from the Council. I can't move the thing because its SORN and I can't afford to get it fixed to pass the MOT. The 'Housing and Social Inclusion' staff have no qualms about putting homeless men on the street but then punish those who offer refuge to the homeless! Here is that Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act:

Sections 77, 78 and 79: Unauthorised Campers

'Unauthorised campers' are people residing in a vehicle or vehicles on any part of the highway or any other land in the open air without permission of the owner.

Section 77 gives the local council the authority to direct an unauthorised camper to leave the land and remove all vehicles. It becomes an offence to not leave the land and remove all vehicles/ property 'as soon as reasonably practicable' or to re-enter the land within 3 months, liable to a fine of up to £1000.

A magistrates' court can make an order under section 78 which allows the local council to take 'reasonable steps' to ensure the removal of a vehicle and any person residing within it. Another new offence is the wilful obstruction of anyone engaged in the removal - maximum fine of £1000.

A thousand pounds, eh? Funny, because that's what I was quoted to get the thing fixed! In other words, the wicked are rewarded and the just are condemned! What about the right to shelter under the Human Rights Act?! What about the right not to die of pneumonia or get beaten up by drunken louts because the Council kicked you out of a hostel in winter?! Welcome to Brighton, readers! I don't doubt that the law is on their side, but justice certainly is not! And, if I move the van, exactly where can I park it off-road and where, exactly, is my homeless friend meant to sleep? Where's The Daily Mail when you really need them?! Isn't it funny how the 'unoccupied land' rules are changed when Zippo's Circus or Gay Pride comes to town!?

Gay Marriage Promo Video: Guess Where I Found it...

2012-01-09T07:00:00.141Z

The gay marriage advocates have been producing some slick videos to promote their cause. This is from a site called Advocate.com. It is worth watching, especially for those who are on the front line of the Church's defense of natural marriage.

For a start, the ad is seen from the point of view of someone in love with a man. There appears to be some 'courting' involved (all very innocent), a nice holiday somewhere with a female friend, happy times and sad times when the 'partner' is comforting the man who is with his dying mother. Then, at a huge family party, involving loads of children, a ring is produced and a wedding proposal is made on bended knee, no less. Then, to our huge surprise, it turns out that the 'partner' is a man. Wow! You would never have seen that coming!

For those now facing the difficult task of defeating the arguments put forward by the lobby that dare not cease lobbying, or for those, indeed, seeking to produce 'light, not heat', the video is worth some analysis, not least because it neglects to portray some of the sadder sides to the gay man's story. That's not too surprising, of course, because all propaganda wants to show us the manifold goodness and merit of the message despite the negative elements overlooked by the message itself. Aren't those negative elements just so inconvenient!? In the video is the key premise of the gay marriage advocates argument and it all revolves around the normalisation of, and desire for total societal acceptance of, homosexuality. If you watched that video and thought something negative, then well, I'm sorry, but you're just an evil fascist.

The video is trying to tell us that all of those beautiful features of romantic love between man and woman are present in the gay relationship. Its trying to tell us that this is love, that this love is normal and healthy. In this sense the video is quite seductive. "Who is anyone to say that these guys aren't in love!? They make each other happy! They look so healthy! And happy!" say the audience. And, to a point, that assessment would be right. You know, even the pecks on the cheeks or lips are innocent enough. You see straight men in Greece doing that all the time.

What is more, the emphasis appears to be on agape, rather than eros, which I find rather interesting from our point of view. It actually shows friendship at its best. This goes to show that gay marriage advocates realise that the more raunchy side of the gay scene, that is, the reality of what they advocate (because, let's face it, nobody in the gay community is advocating chaste, brotherly love) is inherently either (a) unnatural in the eyes of the viewing public, (b) off-putting, (c) both or (d) potential soft porn to be watched at a more convenient time.

No. In fact, the only way in which they can 'normalise' the gay relationship is by showing it as innocuous, innocent, fun, involving rollercoasters and holidays and resulting in a wedding ring in which the whole family rejoices. Hurrah! Yep, even the kids. If you omit the wedding ring bit at the end or replace the ring with a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you could even have this video produced by a Catholic organisation and at the end have the slogan: 'It's time...for chastity'.

Of course, what the video doesn't show is the reality of what it advocates. It doesn't show or even hint at the gay sex, for modesty's sake and the reasons outlined above. It doesn't show one of the men being dominated or abused in any way by the other. It doesn't show the fact that the relationships between many gay men and their fathers are usually not actually that close and, indeed, far from it. It doesn't show the guilt or sorrow or shame that many gay men experience even in the most 'stable' and 'loving' gay relationships. It doesn't show the sterility of the relationship itself which has been known to drive men to a rather more unstable relationship with alcohol or drugs.

It doesn't show that gay men are like all men in that men are obsessed with sex and the pursuit of the pleasures of sex, the fulfilment of lust and that this can end up becoming more important than the relationship itself or even an end in itself. This can happen in any relationship of course, but with two men any pretense that the relationship is about anything else but lust can be swept away far more easily, with little afterthought, and two men don't have to deal with a female's deeper and more complicated emotional needs. Hence St Paul talked about men 'burning' in their 'unnatural desires' or something.

It doesn't show the gay men breaking up and one of them ending up propping up a bar when he doesn't look so hot and is now being ignored by younger, attractive men. It doesn't show the fact that perhaps neither the Mother nor the Father are 100% a-ok with this relationship and are putting on a brave face for the sake of the son and because a liberal society tells them they are evil if they don't feel great about it. It doesn't have the parents telling their neighbours that their son is a homosexual only to be greeted with surprised 'I thought your family was odd' looks. It doesn't show the neighbour gossiping about it to another neighbour and the news circling like wildfire around the neighbourhood. It doesn't show one of the men coming back from a sexual health clinic with a positive diagnosis for HIV or HPV. It doesn't show the Dad breaking down in tears when his son tells him he is a homosexual or the mother comforting the father. It doesn't show the guilt of the parents who think 'Where did we go wrong?' It doesn't show the resulting mixture of shame and anger of the gay son.

Why? Well, obviously, because the message is the most important thing. Secondly, though, because the natural, social, moral, spiritual and physical consequences of the homosexual lifestyle need to be airbrushed from the video because the gay community, despite all the evidence to the contrary, wants to persuade the general public that even to think for one second that there could be anything negative at all about this kind of relationship at all is 'evil' and wrong because, 'Who are we to think negatively of the happy couple? They're so happy and healthy!' You see, to the gay community, even for the Mum and Dad to be uncomfortable with their son's homosexuality is evil and wrong. It cannot be perfectly natural. To the lobby, homosexuality is as natural as birdsong at dawn. Therefore, for the Mum and Dad to even think that their son's sexuality is in any way unnatural, or a perversion or, Heaven forfend, a 'disorder', is evil and if you are the parent of a homosexual and you aren't as thrilled as those parents about your son publicly dragging the institution of marriage through the mud then you should feel very, very guilty. This whole family love and accept homosexuality, so why don't you? Freak!

Last, but by no means least, the promo video does not suggest, for even a moment that, for the gay man marrying the man he loves, this is the end of the family line, because we only get up to the engagement. In a way, it encapsulates the wide-eyed romanticism of the gay movement. So, you get married to a man. So...er...where are the babies? What does this 'marriage' actually mean? You had all those great times together. You shared in each others joy and grief, you're 'in love', but where is the fruit of that relationship? What will bind you together as a unit aside from 'great times' and shared grief? The pub? Sex? The TV? The opera? Basketball? In what way do 'great times' and shared grief make a marriage? Commitment? The ring? Surely, that is just a symbol that you've stolen from traditional marriage. What will really bind you together?

You don't require marriage for any of the aspects of the relationship portrayed in the ad. All that is required is lifelong friendship. Neither do you need the State to recognise your lifelong friendship or even your sex life. The viewer is even left wondering whether the couple have actually even kept chaste especially for marriage so that they can remain together and live happily forever after in some weird gay fantasy in which they will never raise their own children. Yes, the video encapsulates the fantasy of the gay marriage, precisely because it doesn't show what happens after the wedding.

It doesn't show the couple discussing whether they are going to have children or in what sense they even can have children. It doesn't show them not having children at all, but instead going round friends houses and going to parties all the time because, since you don't have children, there is really very little else to do. It doesn't show that the gay relationship perpetuates hedonism and/or a sense of inner longing and loneliness for something that even 'a really great guy' that you're in love with can't fulfill. It doesn't show the couple presenting themselves at an adoption agency, browsing through a catalogue and saying "Oh, that little boy/girl looks charming, we want him/her."

It doesn't show them saving up loads of money and borrowing loads of cash to pay off a surrogate mother or shell out loads of cash on IVF treatment to get a baby using the sperm of one man, making just one of the men a father, the other an onlooker in a process in which most likely the mother will never again be heard or seen by the baby. It doesn't show the couple looking a little uncomfortable about the fact that they've obtained a baby and the mother is nowhere to be seen. It doesn't show the weird feelings of one partner who isn't the father but is kind of an uncle who pretends to be a parent. It doesn't show the child growing up without their mother, or the very real sense in which the child will grow up without any real roots, with all the negative social consequences that will have for the child. It doesn't show the child getting picked on at school because both parents are dads. It doesn't show the bullying kids getting detentions or suspensions for homophobic bullying. It doesn't show the child wondering why 32 of his class of 33 children have a mummy and a daddy but he's got two daddies and where who and on Earth is his mummy?

I could go on, of course, I just wanted to expose the vacuousness surrounding the arguments in favour of gay marriage. Oh, also, I wanted to tell you where I found the link to this video. Why! I found it on the Facebook Wall of the Soho Masses (LGBT Catholics) webpage, of all places!

Archbishop Vincent Nichols: It looks like you have your work cut out, Your Grace. It looks also rather like there are some gay marriage enthusiasts at those Soho Masses. Now, there's a surprise. How much harder it is for His Grace to fight the Government's plans for gay marriage when public proponents of gay marriage are actively working for its promotion inside the parish Church about which we must hold our tongues totally contradicting His Grace's unequivocal message!

Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory last year

While we're on that subject, pictured (right) is the inside of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory Catholic Church last year on World Aids Day.

While I don't think it fitting that a Catholic Church should be used in this way as a gigantic memorial for a worthy secular cause (because AIDS is bad and we can all agree with that), isn't there a sense in which it also suggests that, you know, maybe more active homosexual relationships maybe aren't such a great thing? You know, what with people dying young from it and all and the suggestion here at this LGBT Church event is that LGBT people they know are contracting AIDS. Why? Because chastity is an evil teaching from an evil Church and an evil Pope who hates gays!

Finally, a word on St Paul. That 'burning' he talked about. He mentions it (at least) twice. Once, when discussing the issue of 'unnatural relations' as outlined above and secondly when he discusses unmarried lads and lasses, saying of them, 'it is better to marry, than to burn'. Why did St Paul say that? Well, because marriage raises sexual activity out of paradise lost and into the divine plan for the transmission of human life. It is children that deepen the bond of married persons, it is children that are the visible fruit of marriage and ultimately, it is children who help the couple to grow and deepen in love for each other and their family and it is children who help a couple enter more profoundly into the beautiful mystery of God's love.

It is 'better to marry than to burn' because marriage, in its real sense, brings about new life for all concerned in union with God's design. The love of a man and a woman pro-creates new life and their lives are changed. It is romantic, and many enter into it with naive expectations, but while it may not always be a bed of roses, at least it is not grounded in the Disneyland fantasy romance portrayed in the video above in which there can be no real happy ending. In fact, I believe that children are the introduction of reality and dare I say sanity into marriage because suddenly the World doesn't revolve around the couple anymore. There is a new dimension and a new dynamic to the relationship. Babies! Gay marriages can't make babies, they can only obtain them from others or buy them.

As far as I can see, the arguments in favour of gay marriage are not particularly strong. Homosexual marriage is unnatural and sterile. Heterosexual marriage , that is, real marriage, is natural and fecund. Marriage is not about holidays, sex, love, great times, great guys, great friends, rollercoasters and parties. Marriage isn't even just a 'celebration of our love'. Marriage is fundamentally about the unique and complementary love of a man and a woman bearing fruit in new life - children. The parties and the rollercoaster rides, married friends will tell you, belong to the kids. The gay marriage advocates, through their propaganda, tell us that the main reason their project should be rejected is not because those who challenge it are evil. No. It is because it is becoming more obvious that these 'advocates' have no idea what marriage is. Still, that won't stop them from plying us with nauseating propaganda like the video above until everyone, even the Holy Church of God, Herself accepts 'gay marriage'!

We are the 40%

2012-01-08T21:00:00.005Z

40% of all pregnancies are aborted in the Big Apple

40% of all pregnancies in New York are 'terminated'.

Even by modern day standards, that's pretty astonishing, isn't it? The prognosis in terms of making it out of the womb alive in New York is not too far away from 50/50 and yes, its all thanks to 'reproductive healthcare'!

It's about time the promoters and exporters of this flourishing service to humanity were publicly honoured, don't you think? No? Think that's a bit extreme and that abortion is not honourable in the slightest? Think abortion is a bit messy and more than a little tragic?

Well, you must be some deranged, pro-life, nutcase extremist because, as it happens, HRH the Queen has just honoured the woman formerly at the steering wheel of International Planned Parenthood Federation, with a CBE, because, presumably, the denial of the right to life of 40% of unborn New Yorkers alone is something well worth commending. Obviously, we'll omit to mention the 1.4 billion unborn lives taken by IPPF in 2009 alone because that's just the price humanity has to pay for the exceptional quality of women's maternal health provided by this exemplary organisation.

Does our Queen have it in for the Yanks and the Africans or something? I can't find any other reason for a Christian Monarch to confer such a high honour on an abortionist. We must be at war with America and large swathes of Africa. Perhaps its just a hangover from our colonial past. As this article makes clear Dr Greer's operations in 2009 were based in London so the 'doctor' must have been focussing on the IPPF mission in exporting abortion overseas to developing countries, because the major abortion providers in this country are Marie Stopes and the BPAS. Britannia may not rule the waves but she can still slaughter children in Africa. "Thanks for all the coffee! Here, have some dead babies!"

Not entirely comfortable with abortion? Think abortion is highly regrettable and in general, not an entirely great thing? Well, as a Protestant friend of mine once said to me, "Well, the Queen's Anglican! So there!" Anglican, eh? You don't say.

Icons

2012-01-08T16:28:00.002Z

The Icons of a hungarian lady who wants to find work in London

Yesterday, from a reader, I received a beautiful Icon of the Theotokos from a reader called Tim.

It is part of what he has called a 'Wandering Madonna' scheme. The idea is that I have this beautiful icon for a while and then send the Icon of the Blessed Mother of God onto someone else and she travels Britain, or, I guess, potentially the World. Nice idea isn't it?

Also, yesterday, I received this email from a Hungarian lady. Her message is as below...

'Welcome! Excuse me. I speak a little english. My name is Molnár Éva. I live in Hungary. I'm 42 old. 28 January 2012. I go to London. I'm holy icon painter. I looking for a work in London. I'd like live in London and I'd like working in London. I looking for some work. Any work undertaken. I'd like paint too. Can you recommend me some job? Can you help me? I'd thank everything help. I send some photo about my work. Thank you very much, if you answer. I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.'

Above and below are some images she sent of her work. I know very little about Icons but to this layman's eye her work seems quite beautiful. Does anyone know how we can find her work. I don't think painting and decorating, but perhaps there is some place in London she can sell her beautiful Icons? I know that people are used to receiving scam emails, but icon sales would be a pretty elaborate scam. If anyone knows how we can help her you can email her at pitturaicona@yahoo.com.

Children's Liturgy

2012-01-08T15:27:00.005Z

Francisco: "Does anyone have a crayon for the colour 'more brilliant than the sun'?

Jacinta: "Just colour in the eyes and leave the rest of the page blank. That's what I did."

Blessings of Civil Partnerships in Catholic Churches...Already?

2012-01-07T14:12:00.006Z

H/T John Smeaton of SPUC

You know, a part of the problem with the Bishops of England and Wales's response to Summorum Pontificum, which, years later, can be described as not so much lukewarm as arctic freezing, is that they miss out on a great solution to a huge problem.

For instance, let's say you're the Archbishop of Westminster. You inherit from your predecessor, yes the one who sacked his press guy because he was in a gay relationship, a situation in which Masses are being celebrated solely for the LGBT community in Soho.

Not only have the Masses been organised by LGBT foot soldiers, but after a period of years of letters of complaint as well as public Acts of Reparation taking place near the Church, it becomes apparent that the message of the Gospel, the message of Salvation, is not quite getting the hearing it should be at those Masses. You learn that, instead, the Mass itself has been hijacked and is now being used as a vehicle for the gay 'agenda' which now involves Civil Partnerships, which are otherwise known as same-sex unions, unless, of course, you have been recruited by an apologist media network for the Bishops Conference called Catholic Vices, sorry, Voices.

You know that, ostensibly, the original hope (and it was a hope, certainly at the CDF) of the Masses being brought into the Catholic Church, was that this would be a sacred space in which men (and women) of a homosexual/lesbian orientation would get together in a spirit of brotherly/sisterly love and Christian humility and worship God in the Mass, receive encouragement from the Priest (and each other) to live good and holy lives and walk away from Mass, strengthened by the Holy Eucharist (and possibly the Sacrament of Penance) in order to carry that heavy Cross (and nobody doubts it is heavy) in the World, finding in that very Cross the source of life and Salvation itself.

Happy as Larry, they would walk away from Mass exclaiming "Deo gratias!! Brothers! Let us go hence and evangelise these den of iniquities you see around this Church. Let us bring other gay chaps to the fount of mercy and show them the tender love with which Christ has purchased our souls! See the Lord has given us brothers, let us love one another, taking for our example the purity with which Christ has so loved us! Come on, chaps! Shall we say the Rosary in Latin or English? Ave Maria, gratia plena..."

As far as the CDF was concerned, this was the original plan. That romantic dewy-eyed plan, if it ever did exist, at some point got thrown out of the window or burnt and instead the Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory has been well and truly Stonewalled. Coverage of the scandalous infiltration of this Mass by elements in the Church who do not believe a single word that the Church teaches about homosexuality (i.e that homosexual sexual acts are gravely and mortally sinful and run contrary to both the natural law and the law of God) is available on the internet. Just type in 'Gay Masses' or 'Soho Masses' into Google and see what you get. What is more, these Masses have received healthy coverage on this blog.

However, now the Archbishop of Westminster has a new problem on His Grace's hands. The organiser of these Masses, a Martin Prendergast, who has a Guardian column (today he laments the successful Christian backlash against Tesco's support of gay Pride), has suggested that already 'blessings' of Civil Partnerships are taking place.

"What in Higgs Boson! Christopher Columbus! No! That's outrageous!"

...will surely be the Archbishop's response when he hears the news of it. After all, there is no way the Archbishop is going to allow a man who publicly states his belief in 'gay marriage' as being potentially 'sacramental' within the Church to enlist the help of Archdiocese of Westminster clergy to 'bless' Civil Partnerships in a Catholic Church! Certainly not while His Grace is fighting the good fight against the Government's plans for gay marriage!

Or, perhaps it isn't a problem at all. For 'who knows what's down the road' in the Archdiocese of Westminster? What with having quite masterfully spun, sorry, 're-framed' the issue of Civil Partnerships with the help of Catholic Voices, in terms a 'contribution to the common good', while praising the secular doctrine of 'equality' and thus having already set himself and the Bishops Conference of England and Wales on a collision course with Rome, I suppose there would be no huge problem for the Archbishop of Westminster's Diocesan clergy 'blessing' Civil Partnerships (that's gay unions, yep, and no buts!) in Catholic Churches. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, 'Just how far down this road do we have to go before we get to Perdition?' and 'Didn't someone once say the road is paved with the skulls of Bishops and Priests?' Well, whoever said that, and whoever is saying that now: Just you hold your horses and your tongues!

I know that the idea of a Catholic priest blessing a Civil Partnership, that is, a legal union of two men or two women bound together by their shared sexual attraction for one another, doesn't sound very, um...Catholic.

'That's the kind of stuff that would only possibly happen in an Anglican Church, right?'

That might be what you're thinking, but then, you have to consider that this is England and Wales and we do things slightly differently here, don't we? We're more 'nuanced'. We have a veritable army of influential Catholics whose party trick at The Tablet's annual ball is to nuance themselves out of hermitically sealed steel boxes to the astonished disbelief of onlookers.

What a sorry mess. It raises questions. Who, indeed, needs to know 'what's down the road' when what happened five miles back was this bad? Why hasn't Austen recruited this guy for Catholic Voices? I mean, he's more or less saying things vaguely in line with the Archbishop, right? Don't you just love his definition of chastity for those in the single, or unmarried state? It's about 'wholeness' you know! Whatever it is about, it's not about not having sex or even striving (if failing) to adhere to the Church's moral teachings.

Nonetheless, the Archbishop should be concerned about the Soho Masses, at least in terms of how His Grace is seen in Rome, even if His Grace's concern does not extend to the poor mislead Souls attracted to the 'gay Masses' and who fall into the ideological, moral and theological errors that only an incredibly 'nuanced' brand of Catholicism can achieve.

Furthermore, if His Grace is more concerned about the Soho Masses than he appears in public, sorry, just have to hold my tongue a sec, guess it must be an ulcer of some kind, then His Grace could do worse than to send a Catholic priest of a Traditional mold to the Parish of Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory and do away with the lay-led prayers and 'gay lifestyle affirmation course' said to be present at the Masses, and replace the 'Gay Mass' with a Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form. Problem solved. Within 6 months it would be a very different 'scene' altogether. It might even start resembling the Brompton Oratory. Why! I might even consider attending myself!

Opus Dei

2012-01-07T01:32:00.002Z

"Hi, I've just arrived in town and I'd like to join Opus Dei. I've decided I want to bring God into my everyday, ordinary life and thereby sanctify the World. When can I start?!"

OD: "Great, well we usually invite you, but we're interested in helping you. What do you do?"

"Well, actually, I'm unemployed."

OD: "Unemployed? Ah...Er...Well...We've got the number of St Vincent de Paul Trust here..."

"Hang on! That's discrimination! I'm taking this to the Equality and Human Rights Commission! After all, that was Ruth Kelly's baby!"

I believe that as long as God permits, St Josemaria Escriva can hear and see what I'm writing and thinking, but Damian Thompson today asks why he was bugging people on Earth? If you're listening, "St Josemaria Escriva! Help me find a job! Ora pro nobis!"

Brighton Churches Homeless Shelter Project

2012-01-06T18:04:00.003Z

I received this email from a young woman in the Elm Grove Community at St Joseph's, Brighton...

CHURCHES HOMELESS SHELTER PROJECT NEEDS YOUR HELP

"What you did to the least of these you did to me" (Matthew 25)

'We have been invited to share with other Christians in Brighton and Hove in a national project to offer shelter to homeless men and women during the cold months of February and March.

The only night shelter in this area, St Patrick's, will close its doors and cease to be from the end of this month.

The Brighton and Hove Churches Nightshelter Project will go some small but real way to helping the most vulnerable. Already the project is up and running in other parts of the diocese and around the country. The key is that it will be professionally overseen by a full time coordinator and properly resourced and managed. I have consulted with the Diocese who are happy for us to be part of the project.

What will happen...what's our commitment?

From beginning of March, St Joseph’s will be part of a 7 night rota where 15 homeless people move each night between 7 church venues. We have agreed to host the 4 x Tuesday nights of March (Sacred Heart Parish in Hove will have done the Tuesdays in February). We will have a 12 hour session each Tuesday where the Milton Road Hall will accommodate 15 men and women for the night: all bedding will be provided; guests will be properly referred (i.e. not come randomly off the street) and registered each evening by the project coordinator.

We need as many volunteers as possible to help out for a few hours each Tuesday of March (depending on the number of people who volunteer it may not even be every Tuesday). Volunteers will help preparing the meal, talking and befriending the guests ... then a few will be on duty through the night ... finishing with breakfast and departure at 7am.

The commitment is very manageable. Please consider being part of this project.

Volunteer forms are available at the back of church or contact the office – please complete and return to the office ASAP. We need the forms back THIS WEEK (ending 16th Jan) There is a training session for all volunteers across the churches on Tuesday 24th Jan.

This is a great way to build bridges with other people in the parish and also other churches ... to witness to our faith in the wider community ... to offer a Christ-like outreach to those in real need. Thanks for your positive response to this invitation to be one of the 30 volunteers!

If you are interested contact Jo Gilbert on joziegilbert@hotmail.com

REMEMBER, PLEASE RETURN FORMS THIS WEEK (BY 16TH Jan)

To Eat Meat, or Not to Eat Meat, That is the Question...

2012-01-06T17:04:00.004Z

When is it okay to eat meat as a Catholic on a Friday? The answer is, when it isn't!

According to the 'old calendar' today is the Feast of the Epiphany, so even though today is a Friday, a day on which we have been told by the Bishops we should abstain from meat, it is a first class Feast. Except, from another point of view, that proffered by our beloved Bishops of England and Wales, it isn't the Feast of Epiphany, because the 12th day of Christmas has been moved to Sunday.

Today was Epiphany, but still is for those who follow the old calendar, except the Bishops have moved it, so now there are two Epiphanies for those who follow, er, both calendars? Still, over in Poland, apparently this is the first year in which Epiphany is a proper National Feast!

Anyway, I ate meat today, because I looked on The Telegraph and saw that the Solemnity of the Epiphany was today being celebrated in where else but St Peter's, Rome, where Pope Benedict XVI made 22 new Cardinals and there's no way on God's green Earth that on a day in which the Pope himself presumably has a slice of salami, I'm not having a slice of salami as well! Thing is, I'm down with flu at the moment so I can't make it to Mass for what was once a Holy Day of Obligation but now isn't, except it seems it is in Rome. But I don't have to go to Mass today because I'm ill. Not that I have to go anyway, because...oh for Heaven's sake. Ultimately, we don't get many opportunities to eat meat on Friday and I can only assume His Lordships are all on their chickpea soups today. Party-poopers! I must say that even though I'm ill and are not really up to hardcore feasting, even when I ate my salami, the celebration all felt a bit muted, what with their Lordships mortifying themselves with sardines on toast.

I didn't apply for the job at Westminster, firstly because I don't have a solid background in journalism or PR (I have a background in blogging) and secondly because I believe that as things stand, were I the successful candidate (which would have been most unlikely) I think it likely that there would be times when I would have felt that I was selling out my Catholic Faith in order to work in support of the Archbishop of Westminster. Quite how that has happened is a great mystery but there we go. My Catholic voice may be small, but even small Catholic voices shouldn't be compromised for £25,000 a year. Would the Archbishop really want me issuing press releases in his name, telling the World that the SOHO Masses have been replaced with Mass in the Extraordinary Form and that he is personally going to undertake an investigation into the presence of Connexions in Catholic schools all without His Grace's authorisation?

It looks like His Grace was overlooked this time, presumably because His Eminence Cormac Murphy O'Connor is still the Cardinal of England and Wales. Does anyone know when is it likely that the Archbishop of Westminster will be ready to receive a red hat?

Korea's Got Talent

2012-01-05T21:56:00.000Z

A homeless boy stole the show on Korea's Got Talent (I think we can assume it is South, rather than North Korea). I don't know when this happened but he's had over 14 million hits on YouTube.

Nice Day at the Offices

2012-01-03T20:04:00.001Z

For those interested, I discovered last night that Little Offices don't stop with Our Blessed Lady...

There is a Little Office of the Sacred Heart...

A Little Office of the Guardian Angels...

A Little Office of St Joseph...

A Little Office of St Anthony of Padua...

and many more...

Well, there are only so many hours in a day, I guess, but thought people would be interested in this site with an abundance of Latin prayers, offices and litanies.

"I need an agent"

2012-01-03T02:08:00.001Z

Well, get one while you have time.

Here in Brighton, I popped into Plan Personnel to ask whether there was any agency work for admin, or, actually, even road sweeping and stuff. No such luck. Oh, whatever happened to the good days, when I could walk into Plan Personnel, tell them I was out of work and they'd slip me into a cushy admin post at the Council. Those days, sadly, are long gone.

In fact, the rather depressed looking lady on reception told me that Plan Personnel was in danger of closing down. She said something about the upcoming EU for temp workers rights legislation being the final nail in the coffin but that the situation even now was critical for both temp workers and recruitment agents.

Reed Employment Agency's main Brighton branch has closed down in recent months. Before that, Select Recruitment Agency closed down. Come to think of it, a friend just told me Kelly Services has just closed down.

Hmm...is anyone noticing a trend here?

Book Review

2012-01-02T01:40:00.001Z

I cannot recommend this little book highly enough.

Filled with beautiful poetic psalms, in Latin and English, this book is perfect for beginners who wish to deepen their prayer life and punctuate their day with the praise of Almighty God and implore the powerful intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I picked it up on night and have struggled to put it down. A real page turner!

It's pocket sized, available on Amazon, so it means that you can read it on the bus or on the Tube. Spiritually, its rewarding and I have come to the belief that those who read it are granted graces through the hands of Our Blessed Lady, especially the grace of interior peace amid trial and anxiety.

Oddly, I picked it up at night and said Compline. The next morning I woke up at 6am, which is very, very unusual for me, what with not being much of a morning person. It's easy to navigate and at the back of the book are hymns and psalm tones with notations. A must read. If you already pray the Divine Office or this Little Office then I take my hat off to you. As I said in a previous post, it had been looking at me and making me feel guilty for quite a while but once you start you get a little hooked. Essential reading. A Magnificat read. Antiphontastic!

A Look Back At Yesteryear

2012-01-01T19:25:00.007Z

Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor

Happy new year to all readers. I know I'm looking forward to the coming year. I hope you all are as well.

It is customary, as the sun sets on one year to look back and review the big stories that dominated the headlines during the period. Unfortunately, the sun has already set on 2011 and 2012 is now with us.

So, instead, let's review yesteryear and cast our minds back to the year 2006. For, it was in this year that a controversial headline concerning the Catholic Church in England and Wales ran across pages of The Daily Mail.

The headline in question was 'Archbishop sacked aide for being gay'. You can read the full article here. According to the said article...

'The head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales was last night drawn into a furious row over a senior aide sacked because of his homosexuality.

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, was personally involved in the dismissal of his personal Press secretary, who is also a devout Catholic.

Stephen Noon, who has held a series of senior appointments in the Commons, was told that being gay was 'incompatible' with his position in the Church.

Close friends accused the Cardinal of being 'unchristian' in forcing Mr Noon to go through a 'painful' sacking because of his sexuality.

The article goes on...

Mr Noon, 35, joined the Archbishop's staff in 2003 as his £35,000-a-year Press secretary, with a wide-ranging brief to improve the public image of the Church. He was also charged with advising Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor on public statements on ethical issues of the day.
However, Mr Noon remained in the post for less than a year.

IInsiders say relations with Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor started well, but deteriorated after Mr Noon's long-term partner visited him at the office. A source told The Mail on Sunday: "His partner came into the office to meet him at the end of the day and was introduced to the Cardinal.

"Shortly after the Church made clear his sexuality was incompatible with the job he had to do. Since he was the spokesperson for the Cardinal, Murphy-O'Connor clearly felt he had to act because homosexual acts are regarded by the Church as a sin."

Mr Noon asked the General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Jeremy Dear, to help negotiate a settlement.

Mr Noon was reluctant to take the issue to an employment tribunal because, according to a friend: "He wanted to fight to change the Church's attitude to homosexuality from the inside."

The Mail on Sunday has learned that there were a series of meetings with senior priests and lay officials with the final summit attended by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor.

A source close to the negotiations said: "The Cardinal said he was sorry matters had ended up like they had. But he had not changed his mind about having an openly gay man as his spokesman."

It is understood Mr Noon received a pay-off worth around £20,000 and in return agreed not to speak in public about the reasons for his departure.

However last night a close friend told The Mail on Sunday: "What was terrible was the unchristian way Stephen was treated. That was the saddest part of the outcome of events. The process he had to go through was extraordinarily painful.'

Gosh. What a minefield. How do we navigate this one? Well, for my thoughts on this I'll draw upon the 2003 Instruction from the CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition Between Homosexual Persons, which quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

'...According to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.'

That's my thoughts on the subject and unless His Eminence had concrete proof that his 'devout Catholic' press officer was mortally sinning with his 'partner' then I don't think sacking him was particularly charitable, or fatherly, and even then, isn't the Church the Hospital for sinners? But there we go. What's done is done. I don't think the idea of a pay-off to keep his press man schtum is particularly good press for the Church either, but, again, there we go. Hopefully, Mr Noon didn't go home, weep into a bottle of sherry and decide never to darken the door of a Catholic Church ever again. I'm sure there must be some Catholics in various positions of influence in the Church in the Westminster Diocese whose open homosexuality has not led to their downfall. Well, it hasn't done the organisers of the Soho Masses any harm has it?

Anyway, the justice or injustice we should attribute to the sudden departure of Mr Noon from his role as press secretary for a Westminster Cardinal isn't the main point of this blogpost. There may indeed be more to the story than simply His Eminence being worried about his image in the media, or with others, or a sense in which His Eminence was, at heart, a Catholic traditionalist.

The main point of this blogpost is that back in the day when Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Cormac was at the helm of the See of Westminster, it seems there was a different line on homosexuality and 'same sex partnerships' to that of his successor, the Archbishop Vincent Nichols and, if I'm not very much mistaken, it looks to me as if the current line taken on homosexuality, civil partnerships, same sex unions and the rest, runs contrary not just to the CDF document of 2003 on same sex unions, but, indeed, the rather, ahem, harder line taken by His Grace's predecessor, His Eminence Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. I don't know. Maybe its just different rules for different people, but then that isn't really meant to be the Catholic way, is it?

Now, where did I put that application form? You know, I can't stand those Equality boxes where they want you to tick your sexual orientation. I find it so embarrassing! Don't you just want to write on the form, 'None of Your S*dding Business'.

Stephen Noon, by the way, apparently ended up working as a press officer for the SNP who headhunted him in a fashion rather different to the Catholic establishment in England and Wales and now he blogs on Scottish politics. You can find his blog here. Go and say hello, why not?

Job Vacancy at Diocese of Westminster

2011-12-31T13:38:00.000Z

Media and Publications Officer

London, SW1, £25-26k per annum (neg)

Closing Date: 6 January 2012

Diocese of Westminster, Communications dept

The Catholic Diocese of Westminster is home to the Archbishop of Westminster, Westminster Cathedral, over 200 parishes and over 200 schools in London and Hertfordshire and is a registered charity of significant proportions.

We are currently seeking a Media and Publications Officer for the Communications department, which is responsible for managing the internal and external communications of the Catholic Church in Westminster

Based in our central service offices at Archbishop’s House, SW1 the post-holder will help deliver a positive media profile for the Diocese and provide comprehensive support to the Director of Communications in promoting our work through a variety of channels including print, the web and social media.

The successful applicant will possess a background in journalism or PR, have experience of pro-active media relations and of working with social media and e-communications. Relevant experience of writing for and working on the production of publications would also be essential.

S/he must be educated to degree standard or equivalent and possess a good knowledge of all desktop publishing and MS office packages together with excellent communication and organisational skills and a general understanding of the social and moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

Hours of work: 35 hours per week (9am to 5pm Monday to Friday)

To apply for this position, please visit our website and complete an online application. Please note that electronic applications will be accepted, please email your application to juliedauncey@rcdow.org.uk

PLEASE DO NOT SEND A CV, AN APPLICATION FORM MUST BE COMPLETED.

What's Going On?

2011-12-31T13:14:00.000Z

This one goes out to Caroline Farrow and John Smeaton.

This next one goes out to the Bishops of England and Wales.

Happy New Year to all readers.

What if We Did a Lila Rose at a Catholic School?

2011-12-30T18:13:00.001Z

Lila Rose, LiveAction pro-life worker

One of the huge Catholic stories of 2011 was the stunning exposure of the corruption involved in the abortion industry.

Lila Rose, of LiveAction, used some (rather sneaky) tactics in order to expose, among other injustices such as the destruction of the innocent in the womb, Planned Parenthood cover-up of such things as statutory rape and all kinds of shocking unpleasant crimes.

This whole exposure thing is dynamite, you know. So, tell you what. Why not let's strap some a secret camera to a Catholic schoolgirl, send her to Connexions in her local Catholic school and see what Connexions say when she tells the school nurse she's up the duff.

Then, on camera, we'd be able to watch the Connexions staff say, "There, there, love, we don't need to tell mum and dad about this. We'll send you onto the BPAS, right away, we can tell you're upset" or "Here, you go treasure, just take a couple of these pills. Do mum and dad need to know? No, dear, its all confidential."

Yep, that would be dynamite and the Bishops of England and Wales would be thankful that the truth had been exposed for all the World to see.

...or the van gets it!

2011-12-29T21:09:00.004Z

I have one day to save my van. I can't afford the MOT repairs. It will cost £800 minimum to get the brakes sorted. I can't get a new tax disc without an MOT. The tax disc runs out on 31st December. I can't declare it SORN (off-road) because it is parked on a public highway and I have nowhere to park it.

George has said he might take it off my hands but he is currently unsure about taking it on. The organisations I have written to asking if they would like it have not replied, I guess due to the Christmas break. If George doesn't take it, and I don't have the money, then this beautiful van will die and be taken to a scrap heap. Sad, but true. I did receive one donation via paypal though I don't know how they found my account on paypal. If the kind person would like to come forward I will refund them by cheque for their kind donation of £50.

It looks like this van is going to the local Poor House, Emmaus in Portslade.

Becket Film to be Remade in 2012

2011-12-29T19:48:00.004Z

Becket: "Who knows what's down the road?"

The life of St Thomas Becket is to be remade to reflect a more modern and nuanced age.

In the new version of the tale of the martyrdom of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Becket says of the King's plans that threaten the Church, "Who knows what's down the road?"

The famous excommunication scene of the 1964 classic has been dropped by the makers of the new version because of the lack of nuance involved in excommunication.

Instead, Becket is seen giving an interview with a Canterbury newspaper saying that those not in full support of the King and who question the fidelity of the Bishops to the Holy Faith, "should hold their tongues." The exciting remake of the hit movie is said to be controversial, due to the fact that Becket keeps his life after coming to agree to a partnership of civility with the aggressive King Henry so that Becket's wealth and property can be passed more easily on to his successors without fear of legal repercussions concerning his will.

The new version is set to be released by Eccleston Square Productions in the new year and will be launched by Austen Ivereigh and Jack Valero, as part of a new Catholic Voices project aimed at reaching out to a modern age suspicious of the Catholic Church, but which retains an interest in a new vision of Catholic humanism whereby nobody is offended by Her teaching.

The Legend of the Robin's Red Breast

2011-12-29T16:44:00.000Z

I was telling a friend of mine about the legend of the Robin's red breast. He loved it. I didn't know there was a song about it. How sweet! Let's hear it for the Robin, people! Give it up for the Robin! Legend has it that when Our Lord was dying on the cross, the Robin, then simply brown in colour, flew to his side and sang into his ear in order to comfort Him in His pain.

The Legend of the Robin's Red Breast

Oh have you heard the story,

it happened long ago

When Christ our blessed Savior,

was here on earth below

An echo thru the ages,

from distant Calvary

I'll tell it to you simply,

as it was told to me.

Chorus

It breathes the blessed teaching,

of God's own holy word

A lesson taught in meekness,

by a lowly little bird.

When Jesus hung in sorrow,

our debt of shame to pay

No one was there to comfort,

or wipe His tears away.

A little bird flew near Him,

in sober coat of brown

And gazed in tender pity,

then slowly fluttered down.

Chorus

With gentle wings it fanned Him,

to cool His aching head

And hovered near His bosom,

all stained with deepest red.

At last when all was ended,

as if to mourn His loss

It rose with blood stained feathers,

and circled 'round the cross.

Chorus:

It flew away in sadness and,

till this day 'tis said

It wears upon it's bosom,

that stain of crimson red

When I shall cross the valley,

and go to seek my rest

May I wear like the robin,

God's sign upon my breast.

It breathes the blessed teaching,

of God's own holy word

A lesson taught in meekness,

by a lowly little bird.

Music and lyrics by Bradley Kincaid

Abortion Back in the Headlines

2011-12-29T12:34:00.000Z

The Telegraph today reports on the rise in abortions to reduce multiple pregnancies as a result of IVF treatment.

According to the article, 'more than 100 unborn babies were aborted last year by women expecting twins, triplets or even quintuplets but who wanted to give birth to fewer children, official figures disclosed to The Telegraph show'...

'Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of women terminating one foetus or more but continuing with a pregnancy and bearing at least one other child.

Experts say that the increase in so-called “selective reductions” has largely been caused by a rise in multiple pregnancies following IVF treatment. The disclosure is likely to provoke renewed debate over the practice in which IVF clinics implant several embryos in order to improve a couple’s chances of having a baby.

Department of Health figures, released under Freedom of Information law, show that 59 women aborted at least one foetus while going on to give birth to another baby in 2006. In 2010, the number had risen to 85. During 2010, 101 foetuses were aborted in this way – as some mothers aborted two or more unborn babies.'

Of the 85 women undergoing selective reductions last year, 51 were reducing a pregnancy from twins to a single baby, up from 30 four years before. There were also 20 abortions to reduce triplets to twins and nine procedures to take a pregnancy from triplets to a single child.

The other terminations counted in the 2010 data were three mothers who reduced four foetuses to two, and two mothers who reduced five to two.

Separate figures from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, show that almost one third of selective abortions carried out in 2009 involved pregnancies that were a result of fertility treatment.

Multiple pregnancies are more dangerous to both mother and baby and the Department of Health said that about three quarters of the selective reductions were made on medical grounds.

The risk of birth defects is about twice as high for multiple pregnancies and the babies are far more likely to be premature. Twins are four to six times more likely to suffer cerebral palsy, brain damage that can leave them wheelchair-bound, unable to speak and having fits.
They are also more likely to have impaired sight and heart defects.

The rise of selective reductions will also lead to discussion over the ethics of aborting a potentially healthy foetus while one or more siblings survive. Some mothers-to-be have said that they were considering the procedure because they could not cope with more than one baby at a time.

Prof Richard Fleming, the scientific director of the Glasgow Centre for Reproductive Medicine, said that the link between fertility treatment and selective abortions was clear.
“I would be surprised if multiple pregnancy through fertility treatment was not a significant component to the increase in selective reductions,” he said.

“One of the components within that is the health to the mother and health to the offspring as well – both are compromised by multiple pregnancy. The more complicated multiple pregnancies lie almost exclusively in the IVF domain. It’s a horrible decision to make but a very sensible one.”

Last night, Dr Peter Saunders, the chief executive of the Christian Medical Fellowship and a former surgeon, said: “There is no doubt that the rising use of IVF has contributed to a rise in multiple pregnancies.

“If prospective parents are not willing to have twins then they should not be implanting more than one embryo at a time. Parental preference should never take precedence over the right to life of the unborn child.”

Last year there were 189,000 terminations in England and Wales. Women can apply for an abortion on medical grounds up to the point of birth. Although selective abortions represent a small proportion of the total figure, they are often viewed as among the most controversial.
In recent years there has been a move to reduce the number of multiple pregnancies because of the risks. In the 1990s the HFEA, which regulated fertility clinics, issued guidance saying that no more than three embryos should be transferred at any one time. A lower limit of two embryos for women aged over 40 was issued in 2001.

In recent years the HFEA campaigned to persuade parents and clinics to implant just one embryo at a time and set clinics a limit on the number of multiple pregnancies they could produce.

NICE, the value-for-money advisory body, is currently reviewing NHS guidelines for fertility treatment and is expected to examine the issue of multiple pregnancy. Women who have undergone fertility treatment resulting in multiple pregnancies have taken to internet sites to seek help and discuss the dilemma they face.

One wrote: “I’m 12 weeks pregnant with my first pregnancy achieved through [fertility treatment]. At my six-week scan, we found that I’m carrying triplets, which has taken a long time to sink in, and we feel we have to consider foetal reduction. My concern is about the best outcomes for my babies, and to me. I’m not sure that being two months premature and incubated is the best thing for my children, along with the other potential risks. I just want the best possible outcome for my pregnancy and my children, and that might not be keeping all three.”

Another wrote: “I am seven weeks pregnant with twins (non-identical). After two weeks on an emotional rollercoaster, I have decided that I cannot cope with twins due to health, emotional, practical, financial reasons. I am considering foetal reduction.”

Despite the risks, many women undergoing fertility treatment remain keen to increase their chance of becoming pregnant by implanting multiple foetuses.

“Women are encouraged to have a single embryo implanted and then freeze any others,” said Susan Seenan, from the Fertility Network, a support group. “But if one of the embryos is poor quality or the woman is having treatment on the NHS or paying for it privately, they are likely to want to maximise their chances.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health defended the practice. “Over three quarters, 78 per cent, of the selective terminations were performed under ground E – that there is substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped,” he said. “Multiple pregnancies are generally a greater risk to the mother and the babies. The risk is greater for twins than single babies but rises dramatically with three babies or more.”

Quite chilling, isn't it?

Ask the Experts: Why David Cameron Should Ignore the Royal College and Meet My Friend

2011-12-28T15:53:00.015Z

"Quick! Somebody stop that man! He's going to get drunk!"

Two headlines have caught my eye today, both coming from The Telegraph. One concerns David Cameron's decision to follow the advice of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians who have called for a minimum price for cheap booze to be implemented.

The second headline that caught my eye was the stunning news that a third of all unemployed Britons have convictions.

Let's deal with the first article first. First, since when was the UK Government's policies dictated to it by the same health experts that condone and promote the killing of nascent life in the womb as 'abortion care'? Who elected these 'experts'?

Second, it is pretty obvious to glean from the article that this has little to do with concern for the nation's health (though its cost is a factor) and far more to do with what is now known as 'anti-social behaviour'. Cheap booze needs to be made more expensive so that anti-social poor people cannot afford it. David Cameron has a problem in Britain and the problem is sin and poor sinners. Now we have discovered what kind of a Christian David Cameron is. He's a modern day puritan. The likelihood is, however, that the cost of fine wines, good brandy, champagne or whatever it is our beloved parliamentarians drink, will remain mysteriously static.

Third, it seems almost providential that these two articles should surface on the same day on the same Telegraph web page because it is obvious that the two are linked. Why, for example, are so many men and women drinking Skol Super all day, begging for money for it after their benefits have dried up and not out looking for work? The answer is that many of them have convictions so there is no point in looking for work because nobody will employ them. Once men and women receive convictions, any company that runs a Criminal Records Bureau check (and a heck of a lot of companies do exactly that) will not even send a letter of reply to those applicants with convictions. After prison, many of them in for drink or drug related offenses or 'anti-social behaviour' offenses, emerge with no hope of employment because they have convictions. To be blunt, for many men and women, life on the inside is kinder than life on the outside.

So allow me, please, to give readers an example. It just so happens that I have a friend who lives in a hostel in Brighton. Let's call him JE. JE is something of an enigma. The other day I saw him on London Road with a can of beer in his hand late at night talking to a stuffed reindeer toy. He is currently quite heartbroken because a relationship failed.

He always has a can of cheap strong booze in his hand. I don't know how he gets the money, he just does. There's a lot of lending on the street. Raising the cost of the cheap strong booze won't change JE's behaviour. Cigarettes go up every year and it has never stopped me smoking no matter how poor I have been either. JE is seen by the authorities as a huge social menace and a problem and the truth is that JE is really quite irritating and is regularly 'anti-social' in his conduct even though he has a 'heart of gold'. He has a way of begging that makes you want to punch his lights out and often people do. He had an horrendous childhood, abandoned by parents, most likely abused and ended up in prison probably quite early in life. He is now on an ASBO which means he cannot beg. He is banned from 3/4 of Brighton's city centre. There are parts of Brighton on which he is allowed to walk on the right side of the road but not the left. He resides in a really quite awful little hostel room ran by the Council from which he has been evicted several times. The only time I have ever seen JE relatively at peace and relatively happy is when I have visited him in prison.

The question is why? Well, when JE is in prison he has a purpose in life. He gets three meals a day, he cooks, he cleans, he gets cooking qualifications, he gets cleaning qualifications. Many ex-cons have NVQs coming out of their ears. They want to work, they want to be able to provide for themselves, but the problem is that qualifications and experience do not obtain for you employment in the outside world once the outside world knows that you have a record as long as your arm. Even one conviction is usually enough for an employer to ignore you.

JE is about to go into rehab (again), so he tells me and then he'll be given residence in a 'dry hostel'. However, what JE needs is real support. Obviously, I pray and work for JE's Salvation, but the truth of the matter is that JE needs concrete and practical help in order for his life to improve. Once you have talked to JE and got past the fact that he is pissed a great deal of the time, and therefore, at times rather obnoxious and unpleasant, JE will likely tell you that he gets pissed all of the time because there is nothing for him to do. He sees no purpose to his life. He has no hope for the future. His self-destructive and societally destructive behaviour is related to the fact that he believes that 'nobody would care if I died tomorrow'. Obviously, one replies by telling him that both Heaven and people on Earth would care, but all JE perceives is that his existence is pointless and meaningless. The man doesn't give a damn if he dies tomorrow because life for him is crushing and all he can do is wander the streets all day, at least, those streets on which he is permitted to walk.

To be honest, JE turned up at my door the other day and I refused to see him because his head was bleeding. I told him I'd call an ambulance for him, it sounded like he needed one and to 'get his arse to hospital'. I'm not Florence Nightingale or, indeed, sadly, Blessed Mother Teresa and I'm not having drunkards turning up at my flat as if they've arrived at Accident and Emergency. I've got neighbours, you know. He keeps telling me that he's recently been running out in front of cars and buses because he has given up on life because he is heartbroken because of a girl. He's also recently taken to cutting himself with a penknife since the relationship ended. The truth, however, is that JE gave up on life a long time ago for reasons known to him alone. I know that a girl isn't going to save him. I know that I can't save him. I know that Jesus Christ alone can save JE, but I also know that JE is the real expert on the issue of JE. He has more knowledge of his own situation that do the DWP, the BMA or the RCP and certainly more than DC.

But where does this leave JE? The truth is that if JE did his detox, did AA, and knew that at the end of it was real support and the possibility of a job as a cook, the job for which he has qualifications and which he enjoys, his detox might be a lot more successful. There is no real possibility of that and so the likelihood is that he will not take his detox too seriously. That is why even though JE's public vices are his responsibility, he is justified in blaming society for his situation also because society will never give JE a reason to get up in the morning and stay sober. I've heard alcoholics say that you sometimes have to hit 'rock-bottom' before changing your life and getting back on the wagon. Well, what do you say to someone who doesn't much care anymore how deep the bottom is and discovers that if you have a drill you can just keep going down and that there is no bottom?

Now, you may say, 'Well only God can help JE' and you'd be right, but it is still true that society will never give JE a job even if he gets clean. You would also have to ask why if only God can help people then why not let's cut all the funding to the drug rehabilitation centres altogether and leave everything to God. Ultimately, JE behaves as one excluded because he is excluded. This is 'broken Britain' and David Cameron thinks he is the man to fix it. We Catholics, however, know that the answer for JE is Jesus Christ, but, and I'm sure St Anthony of Padua would agree, the answer for David Cameron, too, and for all who desire JE's salvation and happiness, is Jesus Christ. I have tried some of JE's cooking, by the way, and he is, in all honesty, a mighty fine chef. The Gospel, as well as inspiring us to lead others to Salvation, should lead us to desire that human beings be allowed to fulfill their potential and use their talents.

What today's two Telegraph articles reveal is that within the fabric of British society, for the released prisoner, convict or offender, here in the United Kingdom we may not believe in redemption, but we do still retain a firm belief, or perhaps 'conviction', in everlasting punishment. Parliamentarians, on the other hand, can drink as much as they like and be as anti-social as they like with utter impunity.

Happy Chanukah from Brighton and Hove City Council

2011-12-28T14:29:00.003Z

No Nativity...but Happy Chanukah!

As I say, there is no public Nativity scene in Brighton this Christmas...

... but there is a Happy Chanukah scene in the gardens on the Old Steine, sponsored by Brighton and Hove City Council. Quite sizable it is too.

May I take this opportunity to wish all my Jewish readers a very happy Chanukah and Merry Christmas to Jews and Gentiles alike.

Social Teaching Catholics

2011-12-28T14:09:00.002Z

Social Teaching Catholic: St Anthony of Padua

Fr Ray Blake has posted on what he sees as a division within Holy Church between a liberal wing which emphasises Catholic social teaching at the expense of the fullness of the Catholic Faith and an orthodox wing of the Church which emphasises the importance of good liturgy, worship and the defense of the unborn but, by implication of his reasoning, is a little indifferent to social justice. I suppose the inference of his post is that the post-Vatican II Church is confused about where Her priorities should be.

I suppose that the revolutions which exploded in the 1960s both within and without the Church have affected Her mission in the area of 'social justice' as well as in Her liturgical practises. It is not to say, of course, that the post-concilliar Church has lacked any heroic and holy men and women who have founded missions to the poor. What we can say, however, is that even some of the channels of 'caritas' in the Church's mission have been compromised because of the lack of orthodox belief held by those who organise relief to the poor.

My personal take on the sense of confusion within the Church is that as Catholics we need to look back at our roots. It seems to me that the great Saints of the Church known for their service to the poor really loved the poor. It wasn't so much that they did good deeds, it was that they loved Jesus Christ and recognised Him in the poor. St Anthony of Padua, for instance, loved the poor and saw in them the riches of the Gospel. He openly condemned the rich for withholding their money, bread and love from the poor. It is in other words, a very traditionally Catholic thing to love the poor and to desire to bring them relief. Doctors of the Church as far back as St Augustine of Hippo, St Irenaeus and St Ambrose of Milan preached and wrote on this urgent message of the Gospel and that our very salvation depended on what we do for the poor. St Vincent de Paul was famed for caring for the poor. St Martin of Porres the same. My holy patron saw the poor as the true 'treasures of the Church'. St Elizabeth of Hungary is famed for her care for the poor and hungry.

The problem arises, I suspect, when the Church's message becomes distorted. All of the Saints known for their great love for the poor were great lovers of Jesus Christ. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta loved the poor because in them she saw Christ Crucified. The Doctors of the Church often urged us to be kind to the poor because we should be generous to God. Saints believed kindness to the poor was necessary for our salvation. There is no need, really, for a division in the Church on the issue of social justice. It should not be controversial for a traditional Catholic to be generous to the poor. It should be preached openly that Our Lord made it categorically clear that we will be judged on our response to the poor and destitute.

The problem is the Church's confusion in the wake of the Second Vatican Council and in the light of the cultural revolutions that took place since the 1960s. The problem is that liberalism has dulled our hearts and made them grow cold because we are not inflamed with love for Jesus Christ anymore because we no longer believe in the Salvation that comes from Him. Nothing can be necessary for our salvation if we do not any longer believe in it. Nothing can be necessary for our salvation if we cannot even talk to young people about it. Giving to the poor doesn't help our salvation if we do not believe in salvation, our need for it and the need of others for it. The confusion and division in the Church is grounded in ignorance of the Faith, ignorance of Scripture, ignorance of our roots, the Saints and Martyrs and sadly, ignorance of Jesus Christ. If traditional Catholics are not kind and generous to the poor then we are perhaps as severed from our tradition as are those liberal Catholics who do a lot for Cafod but who dismiss the rest of Catholic Teaching.

Nativity Scenes: Where Did They All Go?

2011-12-27T23:00:00.003Z

Public nativity scenes are nowhere in the UK

The answer is. They must all be in Churches.

Merry Christmas, by the way. I can say that to you because I'm not in the US House of Representatives and you are not my constituents.

Fr Z today posts on The Catholic League's Nativity scene in New York City. It is sad that we are at a stage in history in which, here in the West, Catholic organisations have to fight tooth and nail to remind New Yorkers of the 'reason for the season'.

A few years ago, I managed to obtain a Nativity scene in Brighton from a Wesley Owen Bookshop which has since closed down. It was £35 and I no longer have it. This year, it hasn't happened. As far as I know, nowhere in Brighton sold them over the Christmas period. I think I saw a really small shoddy one made of wool in a charity shop window, but I'm not sure that was even for sale.

Aside from St Bernadette's Bookshop, in Kemptown, which sadly now only opens one day a week due to the poor health of the owner, there is no Christian bookshop either Catholic or otherwise in Brighton.

That's perhaps not surprising, because after all, it is Brighton and Hove, the cosmopolitan, multicultural city by the sea where every message is welcome but for the message of Christ. If there were a Christian, or even better, Catholic, bookshop in Brighton, I'm not sure how much time I would spend milling around it, though, come to think of it, it would be nice to be able to browse around a Brighton CTS store or St Paul's Multimedia store. That said, it would have been really nice to have purchased a Nativity scene for my place this year. It is kind of sad that ordinary gift shops do not think of selling Nativity scenes in this country. After all, they might actually sell quite well, what with Christmas being a celebration of the Birth of Our Lord. Should we really, in 21st century Britain, have to order Nativity scenes online at Christmas if we want one for our homes or make an excursion to London?

It is quite incredible that today the only Nativity scenes in the UK are most likely solely to be found in Churches. Public Nativity scenes, in town and city centres seem also to be a thing of the distant past in this country. There must have been a time, and it cannot have been that long ago, when town centres had a Nativity scene. The Nativity of Our Lord has been airbrushed from Christmas in these isles, so much so that you'll only see a scene of the Nativity in Churches. No longer are the scenes available in your local store. No longer are they made for town or city centres.

It is, as the picture above suggests, a different story in parts of Eastern Europe, such as Poland and Lithuania. Apparently, you can't move for Nativity scenes in those countries. Maybe I'm just being grumpy, but I can't help thinking that the severance of Christ from Christmas leaves the country all the poorer, spiritually, obviously, but also culturally. There is a bit of a cavernous void in the secularisation of Britain. What could possibly be so offensive about a Virgin, a Child, St Joseph and some animals in a stable? On the way to Church, there is a whole shop entitled 'Private Shop' dedicated to pornographic sex. Between that and a local grocers is another pornographic sex shop called 'Taboo' selling only sex toys and porn (yes, that's right - only sex toys and porn!). Yet, strangely, you can't find a Nativity scene in this town for love nor money.

Christmas TV Must Watch

2011-12-27T16:32:00.000Z

I totally missed this movie when it was released, but I really recommend Ratatouille. Pure comedy genius.

You can watch it on BBC IPlayer here.

All Together Now...

2011-12-26T17:15:00.000Z

"Anyway, so I was just fiddling about with my guitar and came up with a few chords. I was going for a kind of 'medieval' folk Christmas song and then the lyrics came to me. Not bad, eh?"

Gaudete, Gaudete! Christus et natus Ex maria virgine, Gaudete!	Rejoice, Rejoice! Christ is born Of the virgin Mary, Rejoice!
Tempus ad est gratiae, Hoc quod optabamus; Carmina laetitiae, Devote redamus.	It is now the time of grace That we have desired; Let us sing songs of joy, Let us give devotion.
Deus homo factus est, Natura mirante; Mundus renovatus est A Christo regnante.	God was made man, And nature marvels; The world was renewed By Christ who is King.
Ezechiellis porta Clausa pertransitur; Unde lux est orta Salus invenitur.	The closed gate of Ezechiel Has been passed through; From where the light rises Salvation is found.
Ergo nostra cantio, Psallat iam in lustro; Benedicat Domino: Salus Regi nostro.	Therefore let our assembly now sing, Sing the Psalms to purify us; Let it praise the Lord: Greetings to our King.

Urbi et Orbi Christmas 2011

2011-12-26T16:47:00.006Z

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Urbi et Orbi Message Christmas 2011

'Dear Brothers and Sisters in Rome and throughout the world! Christ is born for us! Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to the men and women whom he loves. May all people hear an echo of the message of Bethlehem which the Catholic Church repeats in every continent, beyond the confines of every nation, language and culture.

The Son of the Virgin Mary is born for everyone; he is the Saviour of all. This is how Christ is invoked in an ancient liturgical antiphon: “O Emmanuel, our king and lawgiver, hope and salvation of the peoples: come to save us, O Lord our God”. Veni ad salvandum nos! Come to save us! This is the cry raised by men and women in every age, who sense that by themselves they cannot prevail over difficulties and dangers. They need to put their hands in a greater and stronger hand, a hand which reaches out to them from on high. Dear brothers and sisters, this hand is Christ, born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary.

He is the hand that God extends to humanity, to draw us out of the mire of sin and to set us firmly on rock, the secure rock of his Truth and his Love (cf. Ps 40:2). This is the meaning of the Child’s name, the name which, by God’s will, Mary and Joseph gave him: he is named Jesus, which means “Saviour” (cf. Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31). He was sent by God the Father to save us above all from the evil deeply rooted in man and in history: the evil of separation from God, the prideful presumption of being self-sufficient, of trying to compete with God and to take his place, to decide what is good and evil, to be the master of life and death (cf. Gen 3:1-7).

This is the great evil, the great sin, from which we human beings cannot save ourselves unless we rely on God’s help, unless we cry out to him: “Veni ad salvandum nos! – Come to save us!” The very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright; it makes us true to ourselves: we are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved (cf. Esth [LXX] 10:3ff.). God is the Saviour; we are those who are in peril. He is the physician; we are the infirm. To realize this is the first step towards salvation, towards emerging from the maze in which we have been locked by our pride. To lift our eyes to heaven, to stretch out our hands and call for help is our means of escape, provided that there is Someone who hears us and can come to our assistance.

Jesus Christ is the proof that God has heard our cry. And not only this! God’s love for us is so strong that he cannot remain aloof; he comes out of himself to enter into our midst and to share fully in our human condition (cf. Ex 3:7-12). The answer to our cry which God gave in Jesus infinitely transcends our expectations, achieving a solidarity which cannot be human alone, but divine.

Only the God who is love, and the love which is God, could choose to save us in this way, which is certainly the lengthiest way, yet the way which respects the truth about him and about us: the way of reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation. Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, on this Christmas 2011, let us then turn to the Child of Bethlehem, to the Son of the Virgin Mary, and say: “Come to save us!” Let us repeat these words in spiritual union with the many people who experience particularly difficult situations; let us speak out for those who have no voice.

Together let us ask God’s help for the peoples of the Horn of Africa, who suffer from hunger and food shortages, aggravated at times by a persistent state of insecurity. May the international community not fail to offer assistance to the many displaced persons coming from that region and whose dignity has been sorely tried. May the Lord grant comfort to the peoples of South-East Asia, particularly Thailand and the Philippines, who are still enduring grave hardships as a result of the recent floods.

May the Lord come to the aid of our world torn by so many conflicts which even today stain the earth with blood. May the Prince of Peace grant peace and stability to that Land where he chose to come into the world, and encourage the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. May he bring an end to the violence in Syria, where so much blood has already been shed. May he foster full reconciliation and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan.

May he grant renewed vigour to all elements of society in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East as they strive to advance the common good. May the birth of the Saviour support the prospects of dialogue and cooperation in Myanmar, in the pursuit of shared solutions. May the Nativity of the Redeemer ensure political stability to the countries of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and assist the people of South Sudan in their commitment to safeguarding the rights of all citizens.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, let us turn our gaze anew to the grotto of Bethlehem. The Child whom we contemplate is our salvation! He has brought to the world a universal message of reconciliation and peace. Let us open our hearts to him; let us receive him into our lives. Once more let us say to him, with joy and confidence: “Veni ad salvandum nos!”'

Radical Islam Makes Martyrs in Nigeria

2011-12-25T16:51:00.000Z

Radical Islam is dangerous to the World in as much as it destroys bodies.

Radical Catholicism is dangerous to the World in as much as it changes lives and saves Souls.

Today, in Nigeria, the Catholic Church received a bloody Christmas present from radical Islamists: Martyrs.

Happy Christmas to All Readers

2011-12-24T23:00:00.000Z

Ron Paul

2011-12-24T12:44:00.000Z

Ron Paul: Asking to be assassinated

If Ron Paul win's Iowa the media will ignore the result and play down the importance of Iowa in the Republican race.

If Ron Paul wins the US Presidential election he'll be dead the following week.

Emergency Discernment

2011-12-23T01:55:00.001Z

Dear readers,

It is not often that I ask you to pray for me, but I feel that I am coming to a 'crossroads' in life (whether I am in the van or not). I would appreciate your prayers very much.

I feel like I am in something of a hole and that my current state in life, where I am living, my chaotic lifestyle, my lack of proper employment, my lack of a vocation and my really now being something of a perennial tick on the behinds of my parents, friends and now on the entire global Catholic online community, is becoming terribly tiresome. I'm 34 for Heaven's sake. It is kind of forcing me to look at how things are and where things are headed, or indeed, not headed, because things are headed nowhere. For a start, my front headlamps don't work properly.

Thankfully, I know that there is a way out of my current predicament (did I tell anyone I am meant to be getting married and yet I here I am begging on an online street corner?) and it involves a very good organisation in London where I would possibly thrive, marry, raise a family and serve the poor on a more full-time basis, rather than on casual night shifts. There I could garden, teach, lead projects, do family support work, admin, book-keeping or even music and share the diverse range of NVQs that only a perpetual student can obtain with an organisation started by a Catholic priest committed to raising awareness of the sufferings of the very poor.

As it happens, I doubt that this organisation would turn down a van at their family respite home for the poor and, unless the LMS Chairman wants to hire me as a full-time gardener, neither would I have any problems in being hired, because, er, its full-time volunteering and, to be honest, full-time volunteering is the only thing I'm any good at.

Since I wrote a blogpost asking for donations to help pay for my MOT, I have felt somewhat downcast. The reason is that while I am happy to receive donations generally for blogging, since we all have to live, it is 100% true to say that my use of the van would be for personal revenue to pay bills etc and, to be honest, I am not a very good businessman. I cannot see a 'man and van' or even a gardening business expanding and succeeding. Not with me at the wheel at any rate. Secondly, while I know full well that the Catholic community is exceedingly generous, I don't believe that the Catholic community should bail out my bank account because of my own van-based errors of judgment, even if the European Central Bank can spend €489,190,000,000 in bailing out an entire continent's banking system which is going to collapse anyway.

So, anyway, without further ado. Here's the plan. I'll call the organisation tomorrow to ask whether they want a van. I dare say that they could turn it into a minibus at their respite home for poor families in Frimley Green or use it to help poor families move and all that. I know they'll likely say yes and, in the meantime, I ask with more urgency that readers do send cheques to St Mary Magdalen's Church marked for my attention or use my Paypal account (I don't understand Paypal, at all, I don't know how to even link to it) to donate for a van for ATD Fourth World.

The only question then remains as to whether I will be driving it to London or Surrey a few months into the new year to become a permanent full-time volunteer to be joined by my fiancee sooner or later. The Good Counsel Network get second shout on it if they don't want it, unless they really want it, of course, in which case, er, its yours. So, readers, pray for me, that I may be graced to discern God's will for my life in this period of emergency discernment and please donate to the 2011 Christmas Van Appeal. Recommend me to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and pray for me as I pray for you.

In Domino, readers.

Oh, and watch this. I think Michael Voris has just changed my mind about the Turin Shroud. 34,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts! Oh my ...

The Search for Truth

2011-12-22T02:02:00.006Z

The simple truth is that God's response to man's search for Truth is so simple and so true that it can be overlooked entirely. This is because of God's Absolute Humility.

His Absolute Humility will confound our expectations always and everywhere. We always expect God to be like us, not like Himself. When He comes into the World as 'one like us', we still expect Him to be like us and not like Himself. Now that He has ascended we still imagine He will be like us, but He is not because His 'ways are not our ways' and His 'thoughts not our thoughts'.

We worship Him as the Almighty God and so He is and, yet, He is the Humble One, not us.

Is it not the case that those who seek 'evidence' and 'scientific proof' for God's existence demand to 'see the evidence' because if we were God, that is how we would choose to reveal ourselves?

If we were God, presumably we'd give an amazing light show in the sky with the words 'I am God, worship me please, oh go on' emblazoned across the cosmos, demanding that all humanity worship us this instant because it is in humanity's interest.

So it is that we, just like the wise and prudent of this World, the intellectuals, the academics, the scientists and the empiricists are so often eluded by Him. We ascribe to God's nature those aspects of our own that are not from Him or of Him.

At Christmas, the Truth comes to us as a Baby born in a stable. The Magi were right to kneel down and adore Him, but would anyone be wrong if they asked Our Lady if they could hold Him in their arms, put their finger in his tiny palm and let Him squeeze it? Our Faith proclaims that God is All-powerful, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Transcendant. Yet, the same Faith proclaims that it would be no sin to sing the same God lullabies, to wash His nappy, to feed Him, to give Him a kiss on the forehead, to rock Him to sleep or to tell Him a bedtime story.

That is God's Absolute Humility and, in this life, we will always be slightly uncomfortable with it. Because He is All Good and All Pure and Absolute Humility, He can be overlooked by us human beings terribly and tragically and frighteningly easily. The sin, however, still belongs to us. May He bless us and make His face to shine upon us in this holy season.

Pope Benedict XVI Visits Roman Prison

2011-12-21T23:29:00.000Z

Our beloved Pontiff has visited inmates at a Roman prison. CNS carries a good report of His Holiness's time with prisoners which I have posted below.

Pope Benedict XVI told inmates at a Rome prison that people say nasty things about him, too, but it's important to remember that there are other people ready to offer their love and support.

During a visit Dec. 18 to Rome's Rebibbia prison, the pope gave a short speech and then responded to questions from six of the inmates gathered in the prison's Church of Our Father.

Federico, an inmate from the prison infirmary, which includes men who are HIV positive, told the pope that people say "ferocious things" about the inmates. "We have fallen and hurt people," he told the pope. "We have lost our freedom, but we ask you to help ensure we don't lose our dignity."

The pope told the inmates, "In my family," the papal household, there are four consecrated laywomen from the Memores Domini branch of Communion and Liberation. They have friends in the prisons, the pope said, so the sufferings, needs and concerns of inmates are a frequent topic of prayer and conversation in the papal apartments.

As for those who are not so understanding, the pope said, "we must put up with people who speak about us in a ferocious way. They speak ferociously about the pope, too, and yet we keep going forward."

In his prepared talk to the inmates, dressed in street clothes with most wearing sweatshirts, some with hoods, Pope Benedict said, "I've come simply to tell you that God loves you with an infinite love."

Citing the Gospel of Matthew, Pope Benedict said that "wherever there is a hungry person, a foreigner, a sick person or a prisoner, there is Christ himself who is awaiting our visit and our help."

While human justice and divine justice obviously are different, he said, those who mete out justice on earth have an obligation to ensure that prison terms respect an inmate's human dignity, promote restitution to the victims and society at large, and prepare the inmate to leave prison as a responsible member of society.

Pope Benedict said he knows overcrowded prisons make it even more difficult to maintain the dignity of the prisoners, and governments must do more to alleviate the situation so that it does not become a "double sentence" for the inmates.

An inmate named Rocco asked the pope if he thought Italy's politicians would see the pope's visit as a call to work harder to ensure dignified conditions for the 1,700 inmates.

The pope responded that while his visit was a private initiative, he hoped it would call attention to the rights and needs of prisoners.

A prisoner named Alberto, who said he is "a new man" and the father of a 2-month-old baby girl, asked the pope whether it was right that he was still in prison.

"Congratulations! I'm happy that you are a father, that you consider yourself a new man and have a splendid daughter; this is a gift from God," the pope said. While the details of Alberto's case made it impossible for the pope to judge whether or not he should still be in prison, he said he hoped he could return home soon, hold his daughter and build a strong family.

Gianni, another inmate, asked the pope why he had to go to confession for pardon instead of just getting on his knees and asking God for forgiveness.

"Naturally, if you get on your knees and, with real love for God, pray that God forgive you, he will," the pope said.

But sin doesn't disturb only the relationship between an individual and God, he said, it harms the community of the church and wider society. The sacrament of reconciliation "is the great gift by which, through confession, I can free myself from this and can receive real forgiveness, including in the sense of a full readmission into the community of the living church," he said.

Nwaihim Ndubuisi, an inmate from Africa, told the pope that he had watched his November visit to Benin where the people are full of faith, but quite poor. "Does God only listen to the rich and powerful?" he asked the pope.

"No," said the pope. In fact, seeing the faith and joy of the people of Benin made him think that "in rich countries joy often is absent. We are all so worried about so many problems," he said. "With the mass of things we have, we seem to be further from ourselves and from the experience that God exists and is close to me."

May God bless His Holiness and grant Pope Benedict XVI long life, good health and a long reign.

China Condemn Christian Bale for Trying to Visit Human Rights Activist

2011-12-21T15:44:00.001Z

The Telegraph has today reported on the story of Hollywood star, Christian Bale, who has received some condemnation from Chinese authorities for attempting to visit a human rights activist in eastern China. Video above shows the incident in which Chinese forces stop Bale from visiting an activist.

The Telegraph omitted to mention that while it may not have been the primary reason for Bale's attempted visit to the blind activist, the man he wanted to see Chen Guangcheng, who is actually a pro-life activist. The Telegraph article doesn't mention this, but Life Site News, of course, does.

Chen exposed the systematic use of forced abortion and sterilization in Linyi City in 2005. For four years, three months, he was jailed, tortured and denied medical treatment. Since his release he has languished under strict house arrest. Well done to Christian for highlighting the plight of women and unborn children in China and those activists who are brave enough to speak out against the Chinese regime.

Christmas Van Appeal 2011

2011-12-21T11:59:00.003Z

Well, I am quite sure that there are numerous, a veritable truckload of more worthy causes to which you can donate this year, but my van has failed its MOT and I cannot realistically afford to pay for the dramatic failure of its MOT on my wages.

I've been quoted that the repairs needed for the van to be fixed will be £1000. Obviously, I would consider selling the vehicle, and I certainly could do so, if there were someone who wanted to buy a very nice van which has failed its MOT then I'm certainly open to negotiation. Looking back, I'm not sure this purchase was a wise one. I'd consider donating it to some monastery or friary or something like that who had a mechanic in their orders who could make it roadworthy.

However, if there are readers who like my blog and would like to show appreciation for it this year, you can donate to the Christmas Van Appeal 2011 by sending a cheque for me to St Mary Magdalen Church, 55 Upper North Street, Brighton BN1 3FH. I'd give my own address but dead puppies in the post should be for life, not just for Christmas. Any contributions at all would be much appreciated just to take the edge of what could be a rather nasty hit to my already quite heavily indebted bank account. Like most beggars I feel bad asking because there are a million more causes more important than mine, but if you would like to help, you are more than welcome. In the meantime, does anyone know any Polish mechanics in Brighton? I hear they are more 'cost-effective'.

Enshrouded in Mystery

2011-12-21T11:02:00.000Z

I don't know whether readers have been to Turin to make pilgrimage to the Holy Shroud. The subject of the Shroud is again in the headlines this week, following an announcement from Italian scientists that there is little chance that the Shroud is a medieval forgery and highly likely that it is the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

According to The Telegraph...

'The scientists set out to "identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a colour similar to that of the image on the Shroud." They concluded that the exact shade, texture and depth of the imprints on the cloth could only be produced with the aid of ultraviolet lasers – technology that was clearly not available in medieval times.

The scientists used extremely brief pulses of ultraviolet light to replicate the kind of marks found on the burial cloth. They concluded that the iconic image of the bearded man must therefore have been created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)."

Although they stopped short of offering a non-scientific explanation for the phenomenon, their findings will be embraced by those who believe that the marks on the shroud were miraculously created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection.

"We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle," the team wrote in their report. Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, the head of the team, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection." "But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes. We hope our results can open up a philosophical and theological debate but we will leave the conclusions to the experts, and ultimately to the conscience of individuals."

One would have thought that, as well as heartening the Faithful, or at least those of the Faithful who have visited the Shrine at the Cathedral in Turin, the words of the Italian scientists would be a welcome contribution to the debate on the Shroud, especially in the quarters of those noble empiricists who welcome any evidence in their in-tray as to the possible existence of God. This is because, as we know, atheists are open-minded sceptics, generous but sober blank canvasses, if you like, on which discourse on God's existence can be impressed. Above all, they are are delighted when science opens a door into what could be the Heavenly realms. Right?

Unfortunately not. Tom Chivers, writing his blog for The Telegraph, took the announcement from the Italian scientists and both began and ended his piece with the imperious and rather arrogant claim, 'The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it.' Quite how he got that headline out of the latest research on the Shroud is anyone's guess, but to me it seems rather over-defensive.

After all, the Catholic Church has not made belief in the Shroud an article of Faith to be held by believers. It is an object of private devotion, though obviously one cannot have a Shroud in ones own home. Personally, I am not 100% convinced that the Shroud is genuine. If it is, then we marvel at the goodness of the Lord because our faith, really, is based on the the testimony of the Apostles to the Lord's death and Resurrection. However, one does get the 'impression' that whether the Shroud is genuine or not, we can be 100% certain that Tom Chivers is trying to bury Our Lord Jesus Christ, like so many atheists do.

Evil Tesco

2011-12-20T09:43:00.000Z

Enough said.

State Worship

2011-12-19T14:14:00.007Z

Liturgical dance, North Korean style

I've been struck by the outpourings of grief in North Korea, where the People's Republic's beloved leader, Kim Jong-Il (God rest him) has died, apparently, of a heart attack.

I'm assuming that there is no Christianity in North Korea. I'm assuming that if there ever was Christianity in North Korea, that it has been 'destroyed'. Perhaps Dawkins looks to North Korea as something of a model, in terms of religious expression.

What North Korea really shows us is that worship is integral to human beings. In that country, if scenes on television are to be believed, there is weeping and wailing in Pyongyang because of the death of the leader around whom had been built up a mega cult of personality. The State, in that country, as well as the leader, appears to be invested with god-like status. It is rather frightening to watch the scenes, not because of the outpourings of grief, but because we can safely assume that the love directed towards Kim Jong-il is somewhat misdirected. Grief is natural, but the uncontrollable and sometimes quite violent sobbing of the people of Pyongyang suggest that this is no 'Diana' moment for the country, but rather visible proof that the people of North Korea are almost completely brainwashed by the doctrines of the atheist paradise. The ones who aren't brainwashed are, presumably, in gulags somewhere, starving to death.

I always smile when Dawkins says of those who believe Christian doctrines, that we are 'brainwashed'. Has he never thought what an atheistic State in which religion has been all but banished looks like? Did he never look at Mao with his 'little red book' indoctrinating Chinese children of the new doctrines of communism and think, 'Ah, a fine example of a country in which religion has been destroyed'? Does he not look at North Korea and see his atheist paradise in all its glory? Christopher Hitchens (God rest him) spoke of his resistence to faith in God because God demands our love like as in a 'celestial North Korea'. Yet, few believers would say that God's treatment of them was dictatorial. We who know we are sinners know how tenderly Christ calls His sheep back to Him with love and allows us to face the trials and tribulations that come with having free will. We know that it is usually our own disobedience which brings us distress, rather than our obedience. Really, the Lord Jesus shows us just how ungodly and diabolical those mere mortals who seek an entire country's adulation and who want to be worshipped are.

How do we build Utopia, Richard?

In North Korea the State is all-pervasive and all powerful. Religious expression, in terms of traditonal religion, has been crushed. Yet, the desire to worship has been kept intact in North Korea, it cannot be destroyed, and that innate desire to worship has been harnessed towards the State and the leader in charge. It shows us that worship is integral and completely natural for us human beings and that even in North Korea, in the absence of God, we haven't 'evolved' out of it. The desire to worship isn't artificial, something man-made. Worship is as natural for us as waking and sleeping. Our natural human desire to worship can be manipulated by the powerful and used to frightening effect, when it is geared towards the State.

Stalin and Soviet Russia tried desperately to crush religion and enforce upon the populaces of the Soviet bloc a similar kind of State worship, which was almost always accompanied with the obligatory cult of personality surrounding the beloved leaders. Even when religious expression is crushed, a 'god' must be praised, revered, glorified, honoured and even worshippped. In all such set-ups, 'false messiahs' arise who take the praise. Yet, as soon as the 'evil empire' started to come tumbling down, the Russian people flocked to Orthodox churches to worship not a cult of man, but God.

Worship is natural to us but only healthy when God is worshipped, because only God is trustworthy or can be trusted with our love, adoration, praise and worship, however imperfect our love and praise for Him is. Perhaps Dawkins has not looked at North Korea and recognised a State in which Christianity has been 'destoyed', and indeed, really is a model of an atheist paradise. He should beware, however, and see in North Korea that when God is totally eradicated from the public square, something, or someone else has to step in and take the praise, if not the blame.

Sadly, the problem with so many of the high priests of atheism is that you kind of get the feeling that they wouldn't mind terribly if the persons who stepped in to be worshipped were themselves. Dawkins might say, 'Well, how ridiculous. I'm no communist.' Well, maybe he isn't, but really Mr Dawkins, once you've convinced an entire population that there is no afterlife and that there is no Heaven, someone, somewhere, has to start building the earthly utopia pretty quickly. Of course, when utopia doesn't arrive quickly, the ones who say that it isn't utopia need to be silenced. Quite what you do with the ones who want the real deal of the City of God is anyone's guess. All in all, Rich. I think you've got your work cut out here, mate.

If Atheism Day Replaced Christmas

2011-12-18T20:42:00.001Z

The year is 2025 and Richard Dawkins has achieved his goal of destroying Christiantiy. What does the new Atheist Republic of Great Britain do at Christmas?

Well, I guess you'd have to somehow replace Christmas Day with something. You could call it 'Atheism Day', celebrating the height of the atheistic winter season.

You may as well keep the Christmas Tree, because, anyway, those Christians nicked that idea from the pagans, right? Atheism Day decorations could be as pictured left to remind the citizens of the glories of atheistic regimes of the 20th century, such as mass murder on a hitherto unprecedented scale.

In the local churches, which by then will have become centres of atheist learning, passages are read out from 'the new Gospels' of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion and maybe God is Not Great. Then, after a big meal, everyone sits back and enjoys some of the classic science lectures of Professor Steve Jones. Then, adverts for companies say things like, "Discover, this winter season, the magic of Atheism...Buy her something special this Atheist Day."

Oh kids would love it. Love it they would. No Santa stories though, because, as I'm sure Dawkins told his children, he doesn't exist and atheists do not feed their children with myths, be they religious or not. Kids would still love it, because we all love and appreciate 'the magic of atheism'. I don't know why but it just doesn't seem to have the same ring about it.

Guess Who Wrote This...

2011-12-17T22:41:00.000Z

'That the most partially formed human embryo is both human and alive has now been confirmed, in an especially vivid sense, by the new debate over stem-cell research and the bioethics of cloning. If an ailing or elderly person can be granted a new lease on life by a transfusion of this cellular material, then it is obviously not random organic matter.

The original embryonic “blastocyst” may be a clump of 64 to 200 cells that is only five days old. But all of us began our important careers in that form, and every needful encoding for life is already present in the apparently inchoate. We are the first generation to have to confront this as a certain knowledge.'

Click here to find out the answer. You might be surprised. Militant atheists turn away now...

Is it Only an Onion When We Can Eat it?

2011-12-17T17:21:00.006Z

In the scientific community, is there any consensus as to what stage of development of the vegetable, it acquires 'onion status'?

Also, any gardeners out there who go ripping their embryonic onions out of the soil before they are edible?

Isn't it the case that onions are left to develop because onions are wanted, whereas babies are not?

Surely to do such a thing would be to act against nature and ecology. To do such a thing is senseless, but abortion is more senseless, naturally.

"By Their Fruits Shall You Know Them"

2011-12-17T13:08:00.003Z

I was starting to wonder whether it is only the retail world that keeps Christmas going in this country. I don't think the world of retail, somehow, is going to let Dawkins get his way in 'destroying Christianity'.

Sorry, Richard, but I think there's too much money at stake. I wonder whether soon, even atheists are going to suspect Dawkins of some state of perfect demonic possession.

Suddenly, even in Brighton, the place some Protestants might argue to be the 'whore of Babylon' of the Book of Revelation, you walk into gift shops and they're playing 'Silent Night' or 'I Wish it could be Christmas Every Day'. In the shops, Christmas is everywhere. The huge consumer appeal of Christmas means that Christianity, in some sense, is here to stay. Retailers are not going to let this baby go. I've just bought a poinsettia. They're selling at Sainsbury's like hotcakes. Why? Because they're Christmassy, that's why. In the US, apparently, this plant alone, at Christmas, makes sales of $200 million. Christmas is a money spinner. I mean, some people might even buy The God Delusion for their mothers this Christmas on Amazon. Think about it Rich, you know it makes sense to keep Christmas. Your books sales just aren't the same without it.

Still, concerning our country's Christian identity, our beloved Prime Minister has called upon the Church (I think he means the Anglican Church) to take a leading role in shaping the moral values of the country. Just don't ask them to define moral values, perhaps, steer clear of that one Dave, but its interesting that Mr Cameron has called himself a 'committed Christian who struggles with the big theological questions' despite the fact that he vocally supports gay marriage and supports the destruction of unborn disabled people right up to birth. Dawkins recently suggested that Mr Cameron is not a Christian.

The Anglican vicar, Peter Mullen, writing in The Telegraph, thought that was a terrible thing for Dawkins to say because only God can see into men's hearts. Yet, surely, Dawkins has a point. There has to be, at some point, some objective assessment over whether an individual is a Christian and just saying 'I am a committed Christian' doesn't really cut it. Our Lord said that many would 'come in my name' but that 'by their fruits shall you know them'. I mean, what does a Christian believe? Does a Christian believe in the sanctity of all human life because human life is made by God in His image and likeness? If someone says they don't believe in the defense of human life, and supports the destruction of 'defective persons' is that person a Christian? If someone says they are a Christian, but support gay marriage, is that person a Christian? I do not recall St Paul and the Apostles being great supporters of what is now described as the gay rights movement.

And yet, despite voting in a way which would place Mr Cameron quite easily playing Herod in a House of Commons Nativity Play, which would, quite naturally, be sponsored by the local Freemasons, the Prime Minister can describe himself as a Christian and, what is even more strange, call upon the Church to help to shape the moral values of society.

So, for a moment, let us imagine that the Anglican Communion, which really couldn't shape a society's moral values despite all its best efforts, fell apart and only the Catholic Church was left standing. Then, let us imagine that our Bishops united behind Pope Benedict XVI and the Magisterium and publicly decried crimes against the unborn child, condemned IVF, threw Connexions out of Catholic Schools, demanded that Catholic hospitals stop dishing out abortion pills, demanded an end to pornographic sex education for little 'uns and began preaching radical Catholic Social Teaching as expressed through Rerum Novarum or Caritas in Veritate, would Mr Cameron still want 'the Church' to take a leading role in shaping the moral values of society? Perhaps he would, but, then, how politically expedient would it be for him to do so? I get the sense Mr Cameron sees a reawakening of Christian values in the United Kingdom in the wake of the 'broken society' and the riots and he is tapping into that, but I don't think, really, that he knows what he is really saying, or means what he is really saying.

Five a Day but not on the Liverpool Care Pathway

2011-12-17T01:53:00.003Z

You go through your whole life being told by the Government to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. They also encourage you to drink lots of water because that's healthy.

Then, when you enter the NHS when you're elderly and dependent on the care of others, the Government's nurse puts the fruit and vegetable bowl out of arms reach and tells you, 'Nah. You don't want that...or water.'

They need to be more consistent. Why do they bother telling us in the first place? Is it just so that we'll be economically viable during our work years or something?

A Clump of Cells

2011-12-16T17:58:00.005Z

I am made of lots of these

Hi, my name is Laurence and I'm a clump of cells.

Could Dawkins disagree?

The only difference between me and a week old fetus is that this clump of cells, me, is more developed than a clump of cells in the womb.

But I'm still just a clump of cells. So when do we decide that a clump of cells becomes human or worthy of protection under law?

I expect Dawkins probably has the answer. He's a biologist, you know. I am certain Hitchens has the answer because he has now met God. May the Lord grant him a merciful judgment and may his soul rest in peace.

Anti-Catholic Conspiracy

2011-12-16T13:56:00.000Z

That's all I can put it down to.

So far I've written about 7 or 8 songs and put them on my blog but as yet, none of the national music press has picked up on my music. Oh, how convenient! It begs the question: Why?

Why am I not on the front cover of the NME? Why? Because of anti-Catholicism, that's why.

Why have not calendars been produced with me posing in different costumes in different settings, like on a motorcycle dressed in black leather in March, for each calendar month, or in an Alpine resort in December? Why? Because of anti-Catholicism, that's why. It's the only possible explanation.

Why haven't I been signed to a major record label? Why? Because in the wake of the Second Vatican Council and the 'spirit of Vatican II', the Catholic Faith was so decimated that all the Catholic record labels were closed down. The blame for this should be laid squarely at the feet of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales.

Anyway, in the face of this anti-Catholicism we Catholics console ourselves with the knowledge that happiness lies not in fame, or the cult of celebrity, but in serving Our Lord Jesus Christ, so we spit upon the World and all its vainglorious ambitions.

The Poor Man

2011-12-16T01:42:00.006Z

It may be that you will never change a poor man's life. Don't worry, he will change yours. The power to change lives belongs to God alone.

It may be that you will never help a poor man to stop drinking so much. Don't worry, he will help you to stop drinking so much. The power to help people to stop drinking so much belongs to God alone.

It may be that you will never help a poor man to live less selfishly. Don't worry, he will help you to live selflessly. The power to help people to live selflessly belongs to God alone.

It may be that you will never convert a poor man. Don't worry, he will convert you. The power to convert people belongs to God alone.

It may be that you will never save a poor man's soul. Don't worry, he will save yours. The power to save souls belongs to God alone.

It may be that you will never be able to teach a poor man to love Jesus Christ. Don't worry, he will teach you to love Jesus Christ. The power to teach people to love Jesus Christ belongs to Him alone.