O! O! O!... Christmas is almost here!

The great O Antiphons have started today. And this year we have another little head at the table.
Honor joined the boys to colour in the O Sapientia ( from here.)
I have been collecting jewel coloured gel and glitter pens and putting them away for this special week.
Tonight I got them all out and we sat at the table and listened to A Classical Kids Christmas while we illuminated our pages.

The book in the foreground is The Christmas Mystery by Jostein Gaarder, given to us by a friend. It is written to be read, a chapter a day throughout advent and we are really enjoying it and looking forward to the next chapter each evening. It's a nice read for a wide range of ages and because the chapters are reasonably short they are quite manageable. I recommend it to anyone looking for another advent family readaloud.

Christopher Hitchens RIP.

Profoundly sad to hear of the death of Christopher Hitchens. Without a doubt one of the most likeable and interesting of the 'attack atheists'.
I wish Richard Dawkins no ill whatsoever, but he bores the knickers off me. And his sneery voice, which ranges from Bond villain to affronted old maid, doesn't have nearly the euphonious listenability of The Hitch. He'll probably live to be a hundred.

 

Euthanasia is not mercy.

A couple of posts back I put up a comedy skit entitled "Euthanasia".
The writers may not have intended to, but their skit draws attention to the dark underbelly of the most inappropriately self styled "death with dignity" movement. That is, the pressure that sick people will feel to end their lives rather than be "a burden" on their loved ones, or the over stretched health service.
The sentiments of the "ethics expert" Baroness Warnock: 'Dementia sufferers may have a duty to die' no longer shock us. Many agree with her.
Her opinion that “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.” is probably rather widely shared..
Certainly, in a society whose moral and ethical thinking was more "joined up", her words would have created quite the stir. As it was the response was fairly muted.
I think many people felt she had a point, albeit an ugly one. After all, if unborn babies in the third trimester are killed on account of Downs Syndrome, or even a simple club foot or cleft palate, why on earth shouldn't we do the same to Grandma when she starts to demand more than she is giving.
Besides, have you any idea how expensive Nursing Home care is these days? That could eat through the inheritance before you can ask who  the Prime Minister is.
And in these economically straitened  times, you may even find yourself shelling out for incontinence pads too.
It's not hard to see how grandma might be persuaded to 'do the decent thing' and relieve her carers of the burden that she has, or will, become.
Certainly there isn't much 'dignity' in being cared for by people who think that the best help they could offer you is a glass of orangensaft laced with a lethal dose of phenobarb.

Barbara Ellen of The Observer makes some very astute observations on this issue following the BBC documentary "Choosing To Die':.

 The BBC has been accused of acting "like a cheerleader for legalising assisted suicide", which it denies. Pratchett says: "Everybody possessed of a debilitating and incurable illness should be allowed to pick the hour of their death." Clearly, with him, the dignity of choice is paramount. However, while one has enormous sympathy for Pratchett suffering such a vile disease, the fact remains that he is a rich, powerful man and it is highly unlikely that his wishes would be ignored. With respect, euthanasia laws are not in place to protect people such as him. What of those who may have their "choice" taken away, even if they don't want to die?
...

There are bigger issues at stake, not least the arrogance of the pro-euthanasia able bodied towards the profoundly ill – the unseemly rush to pronounce the lives of others "not worth living". A recent study discovered that some sufferers of locked-in syndrome – as many as three out of four of the main sample – were happy and did not want to die. Such studies are flawed (some sufferers are unable to articulate either way), but it should still give us pause for thought before blasting off about "lives not worth living".
Likewise the knee-jerk: "They wouldn't have wanted to end up like this." Of course not – who would? – but that might not be the end of the story. How individuals feel when they are fit may change considerably when their health fails. Like those with locked-in syndrome, they may adjust to a life that is very different, often difficult, but just as precious. Who are we to judge?
Bizarrely, the one thing the pro- and anti-euthanasia lobbies have in common is an obsession with God. Sometimes, it's almost as if the antis are tricked into talking about the "sanctity of life" and "God's will", to make the pros look more modern and credible.
Personally, if I ever get something nasty, I'd rather be with a God-botherer than somebody who decides I'm looking peaky, books a Swiss flight and whisks me off to the ghouls at Dignitas. Or maybe I wouldn't – maybe I'd be begging for death. The hope is that I'll choose.

It's a short piece, and it's worth reading it all here.

There is a reason why disability rights groups around the world are not supporting euthanasia.
It is noteworthy also, that support for "mercy killing" is typically strongest among the young and the fit, and weakest amongst the old and the weak.
This essay by by Dr. Gregor Wolbring ( Advisor on bioethic issues to the council of Canadians with disabilities) is worth reading for an insight into why disability rights movements do not support euthanasia.

The recent news of the death of Geraldine McClelland at Dignitas clinic in Zurich has, as she hoped, stirred the debate again. There is a poll running on Sky which shows an overwhelming number of people voting in favour of legalising such assisted suicides as they offer at Dignitas. Currently the voting is running at 86% in favour to 14% against.
Interestingly in a videotaped interview Ms McClelland mentions that she would envisage legalised  assisted suicide as requiring the same kind of medical 'safeguards' as abortion. That is, that two doctors should both sign to confirm that no pressure has been brought to bear on the patient. Because, she says, that has worked with abortion. "vulnerable young women aren't forced to have abortions, it never happened. And it won't happen with some vulnerable old people...or if it does, then...you've got everybody concentrating on that and have let the people like me, who know what they want, do it easily".
This is a poor and incoherent form of reasoning. But I can't fault the poor lady for that. Suicidally depressed people are not typically thinking about how their decisions will impact other people.
As for the idea that pressure has never been brought to bear on women seeking abortions, well anyone with even a passing aquaintance with the issue knows that this is pure fiction.
And it is easy to see how the kind of emotional pressure that works to impel youmg women to terminate their pregnancies ( "I'll leave you", "don't think you'll get a penny from me" etc) would also work to impel the elderly and the sick to shuffle more sharply off their mortal coil than they otherwise would.


She also says that being unable to get into the seat of the taxi "isn't a life, by anyones standards".
Of course, such a life is very much a life by the standards of plenty of sick and disabled people. But of course, many able bodied people do look at disability in this way. They see it as "not a life". Which is why I believe the euthanasia movement is profoundly dangerous for the weak and the ill, and preys on the natural fears most of us have of losing our faculties.
What we need is a culture of love, care and practical support for the weak and the scared. But sadly we are so damn scared of their condition ourselves, that we have rendered ourselves incapable of being alongside people in their own fearful valley of the shadow of death. To do that demands somethung of us that we do not want to give. Care comes at a price that few are any longer willing to pay. We just want to make it all go away..

I'll leave the last word to a commenter on my last post who offers some personal insight:

  I can confirm we (family) feel the pressure at times from doctors or even "friends", "neighbours" to let our father die. First my father does not want to die despite problems, and second we fight for him getting better, not to die. Before my father falls ill, I was undecided about euthanasia, whether it should be allowed or not. But now I am completely against. At a time when my father had serious lung infection over 2 years ago, we heard from doctors his death was imminent, that there was no point in feeding him anymore... Back home "to die", my dad did not feel so bad and wanted to get a gastrotomy, we had to rush and find another hospital where he could get treatment, convince a neurologist by phone,.. in between GP saying we should be ready to let him go (means die) and neighbours telling us to be relaxed about dosage of morphin! Thank God we listened to our heart and intuition and supported our father to live. It is 2 and half years now since this happened and we are ready to celebrate Christmas with my father, with health problems, but ALIVE AND HAPPY! In times of difficulty there are many people who prefer to send you the cemetary rather than battling for you to live (all disguised with compassion). allowing euthanasia will put a lot of pressure on ill people to end their life!

Chocolate coins for breakfast

 

Happy feast of St Nicholas!

Euthanasia

"You've always been such a..proud, dignified man"

Breaking the silence

 This short film is a reading of a real letter that was written by a young mother to the baby she lost to abortion.
For many women abortion is a shameful grief that they feel they must carry in silence.
Some post abortive women are now committed to offering the kind of support that was not available to them. Slowly, the truth about abortion is being told.
One day abortion will go the way of the slave trade, and our children's children will wonder at our generation's inhumanity.
 How is it possible that we can know about the barbarous inhumanity which abortion inflicts upon our  most vulnerable human beings, then  look away, and imagine ourselves to be humane and civilised?



(ht: Abby Johnson's FB page)

Mary is the Ark of the Covenant? Do you guys ever read your bibles?

 This evening someone left a comment on an old post I put up for the feast of Our lady of the Rosary.
I included a video and added the words too, because I find them beautiful.
My anonymous commenter was shocked by them however.
This is what Anon said:

I am stunned by such heresy. JESUS was the burning bush (I am) - God Himself was the cloud. Do you catholics now believe that Mary is part of the Trinity? That Mary is the savior of Israel? Do you guys ever read your Bibles?
Mary is the Ark of the Covenant??
Why dont you just do away with Jesus altogether - can anyone say pagan??

You know, these challenges are just irresistible to me.
Even though I was getting ready to shut down the 'puter and get to bed, I got a second wind and started tap tapping out what was meant to be a brief response.
Meant to be. Famous last intentions.
Brevity is not my strong point I'm afraid, even past midnight. But this is about as brief as I can manage for a matter which sets my pulse racing like no other ( well, apart from my exceptional progeny of course)
After typing it out I thought maybe I'd put it in a post instead:


Hi Anon.
Sorry to have stunned you.
I hope you are recovering your equilibrium now.
Actually the bible is a catholic book, but you are welcome to borrow it any time you like :-)
And no Anon, Jesus was not the burning bush.
The burning bush was ablaze with God, but the bush itself wasn't God.
It burned with the presence of God, but it was not consumed by the flames.
Mary bore the living God to the world and yet she also was not consumed.

Pregnant with God. Like the bush in Horeb.
Can you see the parallel?
Mary was the living shrine of the Word of God. The Ark of the New Covenant.

This is not a novel heresy, but a very ancient understanding of the scriptures and the role of Mary in salvation history.

No, Catholics do not believe that Mary is
"part of the Holy Trinity" anon.

When David danced before the Ark, was he worshipping the Ark itself?
What did the Ark bear?
The ark bore the word of God made stone.
Mary bore the word of God made flesh.
She bore the living Word. Jesus Christ. God incarnate.
Mary is the " Ark of the New Covenant".

You asked me if "us catholic guys" ever read our bible.
Well now you've gone and bin and thrown down the gauntlet Anony!
It's late so I can't be here all night, but you know I can't resist a challenge, so here's a little catholic scripture lesson to whet your appetite:

Jer 31:31
"The days are coming,” declares the LORD,
   “when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel   ...
because they broke my covenant,
   though I was a husband to them"
Lk 1:35
Marys spouse is the Holy Spirit.

2 Sam. 6:7 The ark was so holy and undefiled that the Lord slew Uzzah when he touched it.
Just as the Virgin of Nazareth, Mary, the New Ark, is holy and undefiled.

2 Sam. 6:16
David leaps before the ark of God.
Luke 1:41
John the baptist leaps in the presence of Jesus in Marys womb.

2 Sam. 6:9
David says: "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?"
Luke 1:43
Elizabeth says: But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

2 Sam. 6:11
The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-Edom the Gittite for three months
1 Chron. 13:14
The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house for three months
Luke 1:56
Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months .

1 Sam 4:11
The ark of God is captured, brought to a foreign land, and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
Mary is also exiled to a foreign land ( the flight into Egypt) and later returns (Mat 2:14)

"can anyone say pagan?? "

I think most people.
And it's pretty easy to spell too.

I'm just kidding anon. We're not pagan, we're just the original historical christians.
Accept no imitations.

Here's that video again.
Listen this time without prejudice and think about those old testament types, or foreshadowings of Mary, the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant.
" The cleft in the rock, which God covers with His hand while His glory passes by"
Maybe then you will even be able to appreciate the words a little.:

A heads up about new posts planned.

I've been thinking that I would like to keep a record of some of my online forum conversations.

Some of them throw up very interesting, or comically ludicrous challenges. But i would quite like to keep them in one place and my blog seems like the best place for that.

I don't want to bore anyone, and obviously there is no obligation to actually read it, but I want to be able to refer back to it myself from time to time.

 Also, it occurs to me that reading through the exchanges may help other readers to think about how to formulate their own responses to similar challenges.

Please don't think that I imagine I have done a marvellous job worth emulating. I don't.

Although I do think the church's teaching is very satisfying to defend because it is so clear and coherent, and I would like to encourage normally timorous readers to be a little bolder in explaining or defending their faith, or the Holy Father .

It has been interesting to see how perceptions of the same conversation differ.

Sometimes I think I am being hilariously LOL funny and I am surprised when others comment that I am rude and arrogant.

I do think that my tone is something I need to watch. But at the same time i don't want my salt to lose it's flavour if you know what i mean.

Anyway, I'm cutting and pasting over the next couple of days and will be putting the exchanges up here, warts and all, for you to read if you like that kind of thing.

 I won't edit to make myself look better, but I will take out some of the extraneous fluff ( mine and other people's) if it gets in the way of the conversation.

Just thought I'd let you know what's in the works.

Young Nuns ( havin some fun, crazy ladies keep em on the run)

I know it's a bit late, but I want to watch Young Nuns on I Player ( I know, quelle surprise) but it won't play for me.
Is it just me?
I'm going to jack it in and go to sleep if it won't work soon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...s7/Young_Nuns/

Nuns are my favourite people, but only when they wear the full shebang.
Progressive nuns in navy polyester trouser suits with a little silver cross pin are all wrong in my traddy opinion. Why on earth bother.
I want an aesthetic ascetic.
I like my nuns to look like Deborah Kerr in Black Narcissus.
I want hemp and sandals and rope and big giant knotted rosaries hanging from the waist.
I want big butterfly wimples or veils so long you could trip over them if you weren't looking..
That's what I want, if you want to know.

"Beneficence towards the fetus"

I have been away from my blog on account of being mired in a lengthy discussion online about abortion.
One commenter argues that the fetus is a 'proto human' whose sole worth is in the eyes of parents as the "potential person" it will become. It has no intrinsic worth of it's own.

Because the conversation has had many twists and turns I didn't want to get too bogged down with the question of fetal pain, since, although horrendous this is not the crucial "wrong" of abortion.
Nonetheless, this commenter challenged me further on a reference I had made to the fetal awareness in utero.
I think it is safe to assume that abortion, for the sensate fetus, is a horrendous death.
He disagrees.
He linked to this paper here:
Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
The conclusion of the report is as follows:

 "Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates
that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence
addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly,
limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in
the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are
not directly applicable to abortion procedures".

I was struck when reading the report that the language is ambivalent. Phrases like "pain is unlikely", "little or no evidence", "little or no data" are not the language of certainty.
And yet my interlocutor is confident that this report supports his contention that fetal pain is impossible.
If we were talking about any other human being than the unwanted unborn, wouldn't we be giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Wouldn't we be horrified at the merest possibility that any surgical procedure carried out on a born  fetus would cause them to feel pain?
This is how I responded to him:

The report you link to, which was put together in response to moves to legislate requiring physicians
to inform women seeking abortions that the fetus feels pain and to offer fetal anesthesia.

Small wonder that those same doctors with blood on their hands, whose work consists of dismembering the unborn, have chafed at the idea .

The report you link to is littered with caveats like "unlikely" or "possibly" or "little evidence as yet".,
Strange don't you think, that where the wanted get the benefit of the doubt, the unwanted get none.

I thought this passage very telling:

"...Instead, beneficence toward
the fetus represents the chief justification
for using fetal anesthesia or
analgesia during abortion—to relieve
suffering if fetal pain exists."

In the absence of crucial "beneficence" we can sweep away all doubt.

The baby who is not wanted can die and die violently.

The baby to whom we feel is owed  beneficence however, will get the benefit of the doubt regarding it's experience of pain.

This is why I stand in solidarity with the weakest members of our human family, against whom all,
from their parents and grandparents, to the medical establishment to the legal system, have shut their doors.

There is no "BENEFICENCE" toward them.

 Honor and Marie-Aibhlinn on the steps of the BPAS abortuary

40 Days For Life: An inspiring talk

This is so encouraging.
Shawn Carney and David Bereit speaking at Helena, Montana:



                 

HT Discover Happiness

Happy Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary

Mary, little Mary,

You are the gentle breeze of Elijah

The breath of the Spirit of God

You are the burning bush of Moses

which bears the Lord

without being consumed

You are ‘that place near me’

which the Lord showed to Moses

You are the cleft in the rock

which God covers with his hand,

while his glory passes by.

Let the Lord come with us

if we have found favour

in his eyes

it’s true that we are sinners

but pray for us

and we shall be his Heritage forever.

Mary, little Mary,

Daughter of Jerusalem

Mother of all nations

Virgin of Nazareth

You are the cloud

which protects Israel

The tent where we meet

The Ark of the Covenant

The place where the Lord dwells,

The Sanctuary of his Shekinah.

40 Days For Life. A timely and powerful testimony.

Yesterday morning I recieved this months CD of the month from Lighthouse Media.
It is the incredible testimony of Dr Bernard Nathanson, the abortionist turned passionate pro life activist who died earlier this year, May the Lord have mercy on him.
He gives an eloquent and dignified account of his  life, his Jewishness, the hardship and poverty endured by his grandparents and his father, his fathers subsequent rejection of God and how this informed the young Bernards own worldview.
He explains  how he came to spearhead the abortion rights movement in the US which ushered in the legalising of abortion, and his succesful business running the largest abortion facility in the world.
He estimates that he was directly responsible for 75,000 abortions  and the wrecked lives of many others.
He was the man who, in his own words "uncaged the abortion monster" in the US, and by extension, much of the world beyond.
And he would spend the rest of his life attempting the apparently Sisyphean task of  getting it back in it's cage.
Small wonder that he was quoted as saying "I have such a heavy moral baggage to drag into the next world"
It is simply devastating to consider how it must feel to wake up to the magnitude of the crime against humanity in which you yourself have been a key player.

At one point in the talk he describes how, after he himself had already repudiated abortion, he asked a doctor friend who was a practising abortionist to film a D&E (dilatation and evacuation) termination in progress. This friend, when he saw on the ultrasound monitor, the reality of kicking  limbs being torn asunder and understood for the first time what he had being doing, he was distraught. He never carried out another abortion again.

He speaks beautifully about the significance of personhood. Because the human being in the womb IS a person, and to deny personhood to another human being is to tread in the footsteps of history's most reviled and wicked tyrants. This really made me aware of the importance of the language we use, and I made a mental note to myself to be sure to use the word "person" more often when referring to the unborn baby.

He rejected abortion as an atheist, on humanitarian and scientific grounds. And he remained a pro life atheist for some time.
It was only later, after a crushing depression, that he started to reconsider faith with fresh eyes.
Looking to the Jewish faith of his fathers for some hope for redemption and forgiveness, he found little.

Eventually, through the aquaintance of an Opus Dei priest, Fr John McCloskey,  who understood that Dr Nathanson was a man best reached first in the intellect, he came to accept the peace of Christ.

It was a deeply moving account. And I felt that throughout it, I could hear in his voice the sobriety, gravity and firmness of purpose of a man set on spending the rest of his life making reparation.
I have rarely listened to a talk that so haunted me, and even though there are lots of noisy distractions here, I have found my thoughts drifting back to it all afternoon and evening since.

It was very well timed on the part of the Lighthouse team to send this CD out while 40 Days is underway. And listening to Dr Nathansons story has reminded me not only of the horror of abortion itself, but of the devastating effect on so many people who have been touched by abortion, the consciences dulled, the emotions wounded, the hearts hardened or broken.
It has renewed my zeal to teach my children to protect and defend human life always, and why it is necessary to never "pass by on the other side of the road", but to put ourselves at the service of  the least of our brothers.

40 Days For Life London

 

#

 

You'll be glad you came.
See you there!

Come and join us outside the BPAS abortuary at 26-27 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3HP

  

19th November 2011: Save The Date!

 The Good Counsel Network have announced this years fundrasing ball. 
Book your table now!
A great opportunity to get together with some friends, have a terrific evening without having to wake up to the dishes, and enjoy the warm glow of knowing that you are supporting the worthiest of worthy causes.



Date: November 19th, 2011

Time: 6.30 PM

Location: 55 Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2PN. (nearest tube station is South Kensington)

This will be a fun evening with a delicious 3 course dinner,
live music and great dancing.

Price: £70 per person
Special Offer: £630 for table of 10.
Dress: Ladies Evening Dress, Gentlemen Black Tie

Call to book now on 0207 723 1740 or book online below
Or book your tickets here http://www.goodcounselnet.co.uk/GCN-Fundraising-Ball.html

A red rag to my papist bull

What am I like?

I've just got embroiled again in a great conversation online about the Catholic church .
One of my interlocutors ( who I have met, this being a local forum) put a link to this march organised by the Secular Society and suggested readers might like to come along.
This is the photo that they used to promote the march they will be holding tomorrow:

Talk about red rag to my papal bull.

This is what I said:

"Dear Stewart
Many thanks for the invitation but I regret that I will not be attending your nasty anti catholic rally.

I am disappointed that I missed an opportunity at Laurences "is secularism more tolerant?" talk.
With a little more foresight I would have prepared a large banner bearing the caricature of the burning demon Pope leading three children by dog leashes and holding a Nazi swastika style crozier.
It would be the same one as that which was carried by the gleefully bigoted "secularists" in the picture on the site you linked to.
Then I wouldn't have had to bother Terry Sanderson with my  long questions.
I could have saved my breath and simply held the banner aloft, as my silent riposte to his claim that secularism is a tolerant ideology."

He respnded with comments like this:

"Secularism is tolerant, except when it comes down to acts of abuse...

The catholic church has been responsible for more than it's fair share, and for that reason we need increased secularism in Europe...

The pope is a valid target for derision - this is not attacking Catholics.

His biggest beef was the homophobia with which catholic children are apparently being inculcated. Secularists being naturally tolerant and open minded about everyone. Well...not quite. But anyway.
 I pointed out that homophobia is a silly hysterical word which means an irrational fear of homosexuals and asked him to point to some teaching of the church that promotes this.


Here is the digested version of the rollicking convo that ensued:


Stew: "The pope is a valid target for derision - this is not attacking Catholics."

Me: Again, I'm not feeling the love.
Respect and tolerance wearing thin is it?
Is Mohammed a valid target for derision?
There are mad mullahs aplenty for your banners, where are they then?
I know why you don't have caricatures of mullahs on your banners. Because your pusillanimous marchers know that their current "valid target for derision" is a safe bet fatwa-wise. They don't need to be looking over their shoulder on the bus back from their big day out deriding his popiness

Stew: "Perhaps I should ask you if you think atheists should stop worshiping the devil."

Me: Well that would be a silly question Stewart wouldn't it and probably revealing of a very touchy defensiveness about being a "good person" on your part.
I didn't say atheists are bad people, much less devil worshippers.


Stew: "Homophobia is not a hysterical word, it has a meaning - it is a word related to those that can't stand homosexual people, be it hate or fear."

Me: It is a completely hysterical word when used about the catholic church which is in no way homophobic.
In what way are catholics likely to bring their children up with this hate or fear of homosexuals?
Any little example coming to mind, or is it merely such a long accepted notion in your circles that you hardly know where it came from?
Really. You militant secularists love to get all frothily militant about something.
And the favourite fall back is invariably the good old GLBT issue. Where would you be without it to stir you all to indignation

Stew: "Perhaps you've heard of the Alpha course. This is Christian course (sometimes hosted by Catholics) that is critical of homosexuality. "

Me: Yes, I am very familiar with it and this is news to me. In what way is it critical?

Stew: "Now you and I can't say what catholics believe because different catholics believe different things "

Me: Wrong. The catholic church is probably the only church in Christendom* where you CAN say exactly what they believe.
We are not free to wing it, and although many do, those areas in which they are winging it are not catholic. If there is anything you want to know about what catholics believe look it up in the catechism online. Simples.


Stew: "As long as there is homophobia in the Catholic church then it remains a problem and erodes the church as a whole. The more religious a country the less tolerance of homosexuality it appears to be to the extent it is made illegal.

I know of no atheists who are homophobic. "

Me: And I know of no catholics who are homophobic.
Goodness me homophobia is a biggie for you isn't it Stewart?
This homophobia hunting has a touch of the old  McCarthyism which saw reds under the bed and around every corner.

Stew: "But many will call the Pope an evil old man who collaborated with kiddie fiddlers and rules over a 'country' that is built upon the blood and gold of countless innocent and poor people who really could not afford to give."

Me; Well many people are ignorant twits aren't they? I do what I can to shine a light into such profound intellectual and moral darkness but it's like shovelling snow while it's still snowing.

Stew: "You don't need gold crosses to have a faith - melt them down and give the proceeds to people who need the help."

Me; And who owns the gold crosses Stewart? Who can make the decision to sell them?
WE own them,
and our future generations own them.
That means that they belong to no one and they belong to us all.
That is what it means to be catholic.
A penniless drunk can sit in a cathedral and be just as much at home there as a duke. All that grandeur belongs to us all. We are rich because we are catholic, and by extension so are you.
If you melted down gold crosses you'd feed some poor people for a fortnight and the priceless antiquities would be gone forever. It would be robbing future generations of their heritage and no one has the right to do that. Not even the pope.


Stew: "Interesting you should mention intelligence and faith - there is a overall tendency for the smarter you are the more likely you are to be an atheist. You are also far less likely to end up in jail. So universities tend to have more atheists and prisons more religious people - and that's worldwide. It's a not very popular or PC fact but a fact none the less."

Me: Well i DID NOT mention intelligence and faith, i was just talking about getting a good education.
But you were keen to squeeze that info nugget in sideways weren't you?
But thanks for the LOLs, because you secularists know how to big yourselves up on the brains front ( "The Brights" indeed!)
I'm not buying it.

Atheists tend to be infatuated with the idea of intelligence, specifically their own.
I just don't believe that intelligence is an easily quantifiable thing ( sorry to all you IQ mensa egg heads out there)
And while I'm more than happy to have the lame brains in my gang, I also get to have the super clever too:
Max Planck.
Gregor Mendel
Copernicus
Descartes
Issac newton
Thomas Aquinas
GK Chesterton
Hilaire Belloc
to name just a few off the top of my head.

What a  humourless, smug, middle of the road bunch The Brights appear by comparison.
And they take themselves so awfully seriously.
All that objecting to things makes one a little dull don't you think?

As Hilare Belloc puts it:
"Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!"

Stew: " You left off your list Fred Hoyle - he gave the start of the universe the name 'Big Bang' in an act of derision as he thought it was utter rubbish. This does not diminish the other great work he did in the sphere of astro physics."

Me: Why would I have included Fred Hoyle in a list of Christian geniuses?
Fred Hoyle initially derided but later accepeted the work of the first proponet of the Big Bang theory, a CATHOLIC PRIEST Georges Lemaitre. He was one of many that I left of the list I ran off, as I said, from the top of my head.

As I said, i'm happy, DELIGHTED, to have the lame brains in my gang.
I don't mind your being un PC but it has more than a whiff of the ubermnsch about it.
Which is understandable. When 'the mind' is all you have it had better be a good one.
Small wonder you don't have a cross section of humanity in your gang, feeble minded people are not welcome with you as they are in the church.
we believe people are worth infinitely more than their intellectual capacity.

I am proud that my church puts flesh on the idea that "the least of these" are of infinite value. It's not like having a march with some like minded mates.

Stew: Now if you follow the church closely you'll know that under the Catholic church that  "Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship" and that to do this you must reject sin. And homosexual behaviour is seen a s a sin. Therefore being a proper Catholic means seeing homosexuals as second class citizens who ain't getting into heaven.



Me:
1.
"Now if you follow the church closely you'll know that under the Catholic church that  "Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship""

Mmkay...

2.
"and that to do this you must reject sin."

sright...

3.
" And homosexual behaviour is seen as a sin."

Sex you mean? ok, with you so far...

4.
"Therefore being a proper Catholic means seeing homosexuals as second class citizens who ain't getting into heaven."

Stewart.
Wake up!
You are confabulating.

You did alright with 1,2 and 3 but went off the deep end at 4.

Well done for getting the bit about divine filiation ( was that meant to be controversial?), now that you've managed that, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to have a further gander for some actual catholic teaching that supports your guess about gays and hell.

It's quite important isn't it, given your repeated allegation that the RCC promotes homophobia.

I'll give you a bit of a leg up with the research (matron!)

Catholics do not believe that unless you are without stain of sin you are destined for eternal perdition in the fiery sulphrous pit.
We tend to be quicker to accuse ourselves in the "sin department" than to be looking for the speck in our brothers eye.
I did already mention that any sexual act which is not within the sacred bond of marriage is sinful. We are not obsessed with orientation as you are. And anyway, catholics are big hearted and magnanimous. We like to shove up and make room for a dirty rotten sinner, without whom no party is complete. 



Stew: Now you may be wondering if I might be homosexual, after all I keep on going on about it. It really doesn't matter one way or the other because, according to the Catholic church, i'm not getting to heaven anyway! But as I don't believe even secretely in a kind of closeted way that there is a heaven, or hell or big sky master ape that kind of stuff doesn't affect me. What does affect me are scum bags who abuse children, cheat on their wives and hide their real sexuality only to be discovered as big fat hypocrites later.

Sooo  if you bring your Children up as Real(tm) Catholics then they are more likely to be homophobic as gay guys and girls are sinners!



Me:
"Now you may be wondering if I might be homosexual, after all I keep on going on about it. "

You read my mind.
I just keep wondering and wondering.
All day it's been going round and round in my mind.
"Is Stewart 'one of those'?"
It's hard to be sure.
There IS *something* of the nancy there, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
...Do you like Kylie?

In haste, but I want to draw attention to an excellent response by Alison Davis of No Less Human,  to this Hardtalk interview of Tony and Jane Nicklinson who are campaigning for the legalisation of assisted suicide.

The interview itself is very painful and sad to watch, and adds to what seems to be a recent ramping up of the very emotive stories arguing for legalising euthanasia.
My impression is that public opinion seems to support the campaign, and many pro lifers feel ill equipped to defend their pro life stance in the face of some harrowing examples of lives which are truly difficult and filled with suffering. .
We need to understand how the arguments for assisted killing run, and how to respond to them.

Here is part of Alisons response:

Both Mr Nicklinson and his wife want "strict safeguards", again along the lines of DiD's "model" law. Note that lethal injections should be available "in only the most special of cases." As has been apparent from places where some form of killing sick or disabled adults has been legalised (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, the American states of Oregon and Washington), it has proved impossible to 'hold the line' in this way. Once it becomes legal to directly kill an adult (by whatever means, and whatever the disability), the situation quickly deteriorates, and those 'not quite' fulfilling the 'strict criteria' are found to be 'worthy' to qualify for this type of supposed 'death with dignity'. Then the proverbial slippery slope is greased enough to allow the killing of those unable to 'choose' death - e.g. disabled newborns and people with dementia, both of whom qualify for being deliberately and directly killed in The Netherlands.

Read the rest on John Smeaton's blog here.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols' Message to Secondary School Children September 2011

Archbishop Vincent Nichols' Message to Secondary School Children September 2011 from Catholic Westminster on Vimeo.

The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster’s message to Secondary School Children in Diocese of Westminster

5 September 2011

Today I want to speak to you, to each student in our secondary schools, as you begin this new school year.

I hope you have had a good summer. Some of you may have been on a family holiday. Some of you will have got your exam results. Some of you may have had a difficult time. It’s not always easy being a teenager, knowing what to do or who to follow. All of you will have known about the riots in our capital city.

Now you come back to the patterns of school and college life with the demands they make and the opportunities they carry.

Here you learn again about being part of a community that is far wider than your family. Central to what you learn is the need to show respect for each other and have some responsibility for each other if you are going to make the best of the opportunities given to you here.

These lessons of mutual respect and responsibility went out of the window for those few days of rioting and looting. I know that many of you were upset at what you saw.

Since then much has been said about young people today. But I am confident that you do understand the issues involved: that we owe respect to others in every circumstance; that theft is wrong; that we are easily tempted in the spur of a moment; that the actions we take always have their consequences.

But it is a deeper truth that I want to stress, one that underlines all these other points. It is this: the respect we have for each other is rooted in the respect we have for ourselves. Your respect for yourself is so important. Self-respect is what helps to set the standards by which you live.

That might sound simple. But profound and true self-respect is difficult to achieve. So many influences can sway you this way and that making you feel confused about who you really are and what you really want.

Self-respect is something you grow into gradually, as you come to accept and appreciate the abilities and character you have been given. You learn of it through those who love you. You can lose sight of it when you feel dejected or misunderstood.

When you truly respect yourself then you set yourself high standards of behaviour especially in the company of your own age group. You are not afraid to be different. When you truly respect yourself you also have high achievement targets. You want to do your best and be your best.

As you get older, you come to understand for yourself the differences between right and wrong. You learn how to be generous with what is right and how to say ‘no’ to what is wrong. Gradually you seek and find true and lasting values, not just those promoted by fashion or celebrity. Gradually you acquire the habits and routines of good behaviour, so that you know how to behave even when no-one is watching.

But what is the deepest foundation of this self-respect?

When you look at yourself in a mirror who do you really see? A child of your parents, certainly. A person liked by their friends. And a face anxious about its appearance. But you see someone more.

What you see is someone expressed in this truth, on which you can rely: ‘Before you were born God called you. From your mother’s womb God pronounced your name.’ (Jer.49.1)

There it is. You are a child of God. That is who you see each morning in the mirror. It is God’s life that is within you, the supreme gift that you have received. When you understand this, everything changes. This is why you have such respect for yourself, in every aspect of your being, and in your future. This is also why you have respect for your family and for every other human being for they too have the same dignity as you, as sons and daughters of one heavenly Father. We share one life together.

This truth lies at the heart of the life of your school community. I trust that in this coming year you will continue to learn more about the greatness of human living and achievement, about your faith in God made visible in Jesus Christ who is your friend and companion, about your own abilities and true potential. I hope that as you grow and learn you will see the importance of giving good leadership to others around you and the importance of contributing to your local community to build a just and compassionate society. What you give, the service you offer, helps others around you, but it really helps you to grow in self-respect as well.

Thank you for listening to me. I ask that you take a copy of this message home to your parents and talk about it with them, too.

One last thought. All your actions are carried out in the presence of God. You can be sure that God never lets you out of sight because God loves you so much that He can never take His eyes off you. God wants to watch as you prosper and truly flourish. You are loved so much. Please remember this in the term ahead.

God bless you all.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols

2 September 2011

Dr Dawkins regrets he's unable

It seems that Dr Lane Craig, that Hammer of the Humanists, is coming over on a speaking tour of the UK. Our very own British "Bright" Brights are disinclined to engage however.
Clinton R Dawkins won't play.
Likewise A C Grayling.
Polly Toynbee has taken her ball and gone home.
It's all getting rather funny to see the Bright ones affecting languid disinterest as they run for the bunker.

On the 25th October an event has been scheduled at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford. Apparently the plan is to leave an empty chair for old Mad Dog Dawkins, in case, like the bad fairy, he turns up  at  the eleventh hour.
If, as seems likely, he doesn't show, Dr Lane Craig will deliver a critique of The God Delusion instead. Either way it will be an interesting event.

Anyway, all the hilarity has led to some creative video's on Youtube;  two of which, out of my largesse, I share with you here, gentle reader.





Before I go, I also want to share a  remark by "Albert" that I read in the comments here:

So why don't more people believe in God? Answer (apart from ignorance): fear of religion. Here's atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel on fear of religion:

I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind… This is a somewhat ridiculous situation… [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.

The same commenter also linked to this blog post which caught my attention.It is about the cosmological argument, and I have saved it to read propely when I'm less tired ( and I will send it to my Dominic who is doing theology at A level, this stuff is up his alley)
Here is what the blogger, Edward Fesser, says about himself:

I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.

It might be worth a look if you like that kind of thing.

The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning.

A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth.
It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart.




 

  Sorrow is better than laughter, because a sad face is good for the heart.

Thursday night saw Fr Alan return for the last time to the little church of St Charles Borromeo in Ogle Street.

For the last time he boldly announced the Gospel and gave us a message of hope. 

As he lay in his coffin over the sunken baptismal font he "broke the bread of The Word", and delivered his final, most eloquent Kerygma.  

Those waters of death into which he had plunged countless new Christians, and brought them out into new life, were the same waters over which his body now reposed in death.

He had died, as he had wished, affirming the faith of our Holy Mother the Church.

When the Creed was prayed in the packed church on Thursday night, the confidence with which the words were announced made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end, and brought tears to my eyes. This is our faith, the faith of the Church.

Thanks be to God.

"He is not here, for he is risen as he said he would"

The book of the Gospels, resting on his coffin, was open to the Easter Sunday reading from Matthew. 

After the liturgy, many stayed behind to "keep him company" in prayer.

Pale faced and sombre, they came forward to kneel before his coffin,  to kiss it and pray. 

Love is stronger than death. 


It was very peaceful and consoling to sit quietly in the church with the others.
I thought about Fr Alan and all the lives that he had touched, the souls he had brought close to Christ .
I thought about how he had poured his life out for the people of God. How tirelessly he had worked.

My soul yearns, even faints, for the courts of the LORD; my heart and my flesh cry out for the living God.   

 Even the sparrow has found a home, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may have her young— a place near your altar, O LORD Almighty, my King and my God.

    Blessed are those who dwell in your house; they are ever praising you.

And now his pilgrimage on earth is over. He is home at last, in his Father's House.

Blessed are those whose strength is in you, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage.

     As they pass through the Valley of weeping, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools.

    They go from strength to strength, till each appears before God in Zion.

With a full heart, I looked at the place over the font where his coffin rested and remembered Marie-Aibhlinn's baptism last year.
I little imagined that he would not see another Christmas at Ogle Street.

Better is one day in your courts than a thousand elsewhere;

I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than dwell in the tents of the wicked.

     For the LORD God is a sun and shield; the LORD bestows favour and honour; no good thing does he withhold from those whose walk is blameless.  

 O LORD Almighty, blessed is the man who trusts in you

"Ephphata" Be opened.
"The Lord Jesus made the deaf hear and the dumb speak. May He soon touch your ears to receive His Word, and your mouth to proclaim His faith, to the praise and glory of God the Father."

Here are the two video's ( one oddly sideways) of Marie-Aibhlinns baptism last year. 

It is especially poignant to watch them now.

I am thanking God for Fr Alan's ministry, and for the privilege of having known him.

And I'm praying for the grace of perserverance, so that, like him, I will run to the end, the race marked out for me. 

 

 

 Fr Alan's funeral was on Friday, at Westminster Cathedral, it was a beautiful service and the cathedral was filled to standing room only.
He was buried at St Mary's cemetery in Kensal Green.