Think Scientists are truly Objective ?

...More things in Heaven & Earth ?

"Connections" by James Burke - Episode One: ' The Trigger Effect '

Abortion & euthanasia

IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL TO READ AND REVISE pgs 208-225 within the Tyler & Reid
religious Studies textbook:


When answering an abortion question one has to understand that this is a issue which relies on :

a] a notion of rights , especially for the mother [p215] ; secondly the utilitarian notion of 'rights for the unborn' which seem more like justifications to abort the foetus that could potentially live a life including pain and disability, have a relatively 'poor quality of life' or is unwanted.
b] the religious notion of the Sanctity of Life, of Life as a gift given by a Loving Creator God and the rights of the foetus as such [p215]
c] the notion of personhood - and the legislation that follows from this within the revised mixed strategy with the inclusion of the potentiality considerations. remember in the US an embryo/foetus is considered a human being but not a human person in order to permit abortion but also to charge any third party who caused an unwanted miscarriage with a criminal offence . Definitions [p209]
d] the moral worth and dignity of the foetus :

This last issue will be the main structure of any answer: You must mention the developmental stages ; e.g. the legal limit of 14 days for embryonic experimentation , the 24 weeks legal limit for reasons other than significant medical/psychological harm to the mother [which permits abortion up to birth], implantation, the development of the primitive streak , the neural groove [where the developing brain connects to the developing spinal cord [17 days] ] , resemblance [10-12wks], autonomous reactivity [12-16wks] the quickening, the variance and movable nature of viability with scientific advancement, and birth.

Remember the five main ideological strands:

Conservative: [Religious] [The roman catholic response provides the best definition of this stance]
[Secular] in that as it is impossible to determine where a group of cells becomes a human being/person ; therefore all moral considerations must treat the embryo foetus as a human being from conception.

[The conservative view has to overcome the difficulty of the significant observable difference between a fertilised ovum and a newborn baby ; especially considering 32% of embryos do not implant; and 20 % of developing foetuses do not survive to full term]

Extreme liberal [radical feminist] : a reverse of the conservative secular argument ; that as it is impossible to determine where the mother's tissue becomes an independent entity and human being ; the embryo/foetus MUST be considered as nothing more than tissue of the mother until birth and the cutting of the umbilical cord. Even if it is deemed a human being or person , this is an irrelevance as the rights of the mother over that part of herself countermand any rights of the foetus.

[the extreme liberal view has obvious difficulties in that to most people a late-term foetus is far from a a piece of human tissue as innocuous as a kidney or liver, and abortion cannot be considered as morally irrelevant as having a haircut as the extreme liberal would imply - there are also the issues of pregnancy through rape [the woman should have little psychological concern that she's carrying a rapist's child - it is merely a piece of tissue; nor should there be much anguish at miscarriage [it is not the loss of a child] - but there is a major crucial problem inherant within this stance : that of surrogacy - as one woman provides the fertilised ovum , and another sustains and grows the foetus - to whom does the foetus belong ? For the extreme liberal this brings great difficulties.

Moderate Liberal :

a] Animalistic - The embryo and foetus should correspond to whatever one deems as an appropriate ethical stance regarding the dignity and worth of higher animals.

b] The Mixed Theory: This is the major stance [combined with the notion of personhood] which is adopted within western societies. It considers both the secular conservative and extreme liberal indeterminacy [no absolute cut-off point where one can say a foetus becomes a human being] position as specious and unworkable.
There have to be limits where abortion is permissible [usually for any reason ; as the destruction of a non-human is innocuous] until a certain cut-off point where only medical/psychological harm to the mother may justify abortion [this is predominantly legislated at viability]. Thus at early term pregnancy abortion for any reason is permissible , at late term one requires a serious reason, and there is a fuzzy region mid-term where there is an openness for debate on the issue.

The mixed strategy , in attempting to accomodate liberal and conservative terms , sides strongly with the extreme liberal view in regards to the moral insignificance of the embryo and early term foetus - it is merely a matter of a time limit for abortion - even justifications as potentially morally reprehensible as wilful pregnancy/abortion for cosmetic [clearing of skin] or increasing sexual libido reasons are deemed as morally irrelevant ; providing the abortion occurs within an early timescale.

In order to accommodate the potential difficulties with justifying late-term abortions ; mixed strategy approaches became even more sided with the extreme liberal view by introducing the 'parasitical principle' in that in order for the foetus to survive within the womb it requires oxygen , nutrients, warmth and protection from the mother ; and the mother cannot be expected to be enforced into this position of providing for the dependant foetus. [Ref Judith Jarvis Thompson's Violinist analogy and the justifications within US Law in Roe vs Wade]

c] Potentiality - this position seeks to limit the 'moral irrelevance' factor within the mixed strategy by declaring that the fertilised ovum,embryo and foetus are unique entities worthy of degrees of respect as such ; therefore abortion for any reason is morally repugnant ; and only a serious reason would make it justifiable.


Biblical passages and statements against abortion.

When my bones were being formed, carefully put together in my mother's womb, when I was growing there in secret, you knew that I was there -you saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began. Psalms 139:15-16

Before I was born, the LORD chose me and appointed me to be his servant. Isaiah 49:1

"Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived."
Isaiah 46:3

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Jeremiah 1:5


You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb.
Didache (an early Christian document c100AD)



"From the time that the ovum is fertilised a new life is begun which is neither that of the father or the mother. It is the life of a new human being with its own growth. It would never become human if it were not human already"
Document on Procured Abortion (1974), Roman Catholic Church


"Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are the most abominable of crimes"
Statement from the Roman Catholic Church

'If you do make a mistake don't destroy the life ... because also to that child God says, "I have called you by your name, I have carved you in the palm of my hand: you are mine"'
Mother Teresa

'Ever noticed that those who support abortion all happen to have been born ?'
Ronald Reagan

The AQA book provides a reasonably good set of resources for different religious considerations of Abortion ; ensure you know a couple of religions inside-out ; but I'd recommend you learn the Roman Catholic position plus another you feel most familiar with.
ADVICE : Remember that although there are many social concerns ; you're arguing about the ethical positions addressing abortion. Using justifications like 'making abortion illegal would be wrong as it would lead to backstreet abortions' are a concern , but not one which addresses the rights and wrongs of abortion itself ; especially in regard to the moral worth and dignity of the foetus. If you wish to argue that the Rights of the mother outweigh all other considerations [parasitical principle , subsequent duty of care etc] be sure that you are able to counter all the opposing positions. If you wish to argue against abortion from a conservative position , you must adress every opposing viewpoint and have valid, cogent responses to each ; especially in regard to an early term embryo who does not resemble a human being or possess the majority of human physical attributes or faculties ; you may have to argue from the point of 'what it will become without direct intervention to prevent it becoming that developed human being' - that from point zero it is a potential human being like you or I.

You could be asked to apply something/ everything you've learned in the abortion arguments to one specific issue - embryonic research or foetal euthanasia or the notion of personhood or religious rights to life - DON'T PANIC ! You have all the necessary provisional material to answer the question ; you merely just have to change the emphasis of those arguments accordingly to ensure they directly answer the question.


Euthanasia :
It's unlikely that you'll get a euthanasia question on its own [although IT IS possible] ; but it's strongly recommended that you revise every aspect of it in case one specific aspect comes up as a secondary aspect of a question.

Although you must use the AQA arguments pro and con [very weak - using these on their own won't provide a good grade] ; it is highly recommended that you include the extra Tyler & Reid arguments [220 onwards] & the notion of palliative care and the hospice movement.

In order to gain extra points I strongly advise that you use the James Rachels arguments to argue the potential dangers with merely accepting passive over active euthanasia.
1. As active euthanasia immediately stops pain and suffering ; and passive allows a further short-term period of pain and suffering - if the justification for passive euthanasia is to prevent pain and suffering ; surely active is better ?
2. We are legally allowed to withdraw treatment from any newborn Downs syndrome babies with duodenal atresia [twisted bowel] ; whereas a non-Downs baby must undergo minor surgery to save their lives. As we are allowing the Downs baby to die for no other reason than because they have Downs , this leads to two consequences:
either a] we can kill/allow to die all Downs children ; or b] All Downs babies should and must be treated.
3. Two brothers wish their nephew to die : If one brother drowned him in the bath , or in another scenario the other brother saw the child slip in the bath, bang their head and drown without rescuing him . What is the ultimate ethical difference if both consequences result in the death of the child ?

[THE ANSWER TO 3 IS KNOWN AS THE 'in absentia corollary'. In the first case the child would not be dead ; in the second he would have died anyway; only if there was a duty of care could there be deemed any legal cupability; moral culpability is of course very different]

4. Allowing to die vs. Direct intervention to end life. When a doctor withdraws treatment are we fooling ourselves that the doctor is not making a direct action to end life ? If there is a duty of care, and a doctor abrogates that responsibility; is this not a direct act of omission ? The doctor is actually doing something in refusing to provide further treatment. [rather than one of commission which active euthanasia requires].

ADVICE : Remember this is a very sensitive subject and writing in any extreme way supporting either a strong pro or contra position for or against euthanasia without due concern will make you seem callous and heartless ; denying either a person's rights to 'die with dignity or live with dignity'- and antagonising an examiner will lose you points . Read all the arguments inside and out; and look out for fallacies appealing to either sentiment or the removal of duty/responsibility of care in order to accommodate utilitarian notions of increasing pleasure/eliminating pain, or those which introduce notions of personhood - especially for those in PVS or suffering dementia/alzheimer's. Yet again you have to give every side a voice and counter each one ; even with those arguments with which you might possibly agree. Remember too the hospice movement and palliative care ; but remember the difficulties in arguing against personal autonomy [J S MILL] for those who wish to die and want someone else to kill them in assisted suicide. The AQA book is adequately proficient in explaining most religious approaches to euthanasia , but if you wish to mention the Roman catholic position - it is better that you use the Taylor and Reid [for instance DON'T use the Hans Kung quote , as most catholics consider hans kung to be very far from a real catholic - if you get a catholic examiner they'd go ballistic!]
remember too that you're being placed in a position where you'll be expected to "SHOW OFF YOUR KNOWLEDGE" - if you can remember a few different viewpoints from different religions - use them !

utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical system which pre-supposes we are have some degree of freedom and responsibility for our actions. [i.e. it is not hard determinist]
It is non-relativist in that - although not absolutist - one is obliged to perform ‘right’ action ; one has a duty to perform those acts which promote greater utility.
Utility may be defined as that which is useful, beneficial , increases pleasure or happiness, diminishes pain or suffering.
Unlike deontological forms of ethics , Utilitarianism is teleological and consequentialist ; in that it is concerned solely with the justification/moral worth of an act by its ends and consequences ; not its means, motives or intentions.

At the dawn of the Industrial revolution, and post the American and French revolutions, [where social injustice, inequality and the rights of the majority became significant social and political concerns ] ;
Jeremy Bentham concluded; and subsequently adopted the principle that:

“Right actions are those which produce the greatest pleasures for those affected by their consequences ; wrong actions are those which do not.”

In order to assess and determine a standard for judging personal and private action [it‘s rightness dependant upon its ‘Utility‘ or usefulness ] ; Bentham introduced the hedonic calculus to calculate the most pleasurable and least painful action :
The action’s :
a] intensity
b] duration
c] certainty
d] propinquity [nearness] vs. its remoteness.
e] fecundity [the chances of there being further pleasures]
f] purity [the chances of there being less further pain]
g] extent

With this process one could be able to ascertain right action by quantifying happiness.
Yet within this system lie two major difficulties:
a] The inability to determine or predict one or more of the factors within the hedonic calculus.
b] a danger of narcissistic self-gratification and indulgence ; which John Stuart Mill considered a ‘wallowing in lower pleasures’.
Thus Mill introduced the principle that utilitarianism’s primary moral concern should be towards the quality rather than quantity of the act ; and should aspire to the higher-order goods such as art, culture and intellectual/social improvement.
Mill also considered that personal autonomy , when it affected solely the private individual and had no influence on society ; was not within any remit for the social majority to either influence or legislate against. The harm principle dictates that the majority may only act against the will of the individual if it is to protect and prevent harm to others.

Utilitarianism’s strengths include its consideration for that which actually affects others - the consequences of an action ; where the intention and motive may be irrelevant or ambivalent .
It also takes into consideration that circumstances change and there must consequently be an alteration within the ethical judgment and determination. There is no [potentially cruel and unjust] inflexible categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism is a communal ethical system where the benefits to society become paramount.
What is important is human well-being and their happiness here-and-now ; not in some future metaphysical and possibly non-existent ‘Heaven’. The greatest good for the greatest number is an obviously good ideal and needs no reliance upon religion or legal system to validate it.
The principle promotes a democratic voting system wherein the majority [which includes the weak, poor, dispossessed and disenfranchised] have a voice in the decision making rather than some influential minority [e.g. church or aristocracy].
Utilitarianism’s fundamental weakness is that it is too simplistic in nature ; giving no consideration to either means or motive .
It is also always predictive in nature ; the consequences of an action being indeterminate ; even though experience may provide some guidance ; there is no guarantee that the consequences will correspond to the intention towards them.
There is also no guarantee that the wishes of the majority are right.
There is also the difficulty in that as utilitarianism insists that it is solely the consequences of an action which provide ethical worth ; potentially any action , providing it brings about beneficial consequences ; can be justified.
There is also no credit given towards that which human beings generally naturally judge a person’s character : their motive and intention behind the action.
Utilitarianism comes directly into conflict with concepts of universal human rights and justice as there is no inherent 'right or wrong', actions have only instrumental value, and motives towards a consequence are neither 'good nor bad' merely morally neutral ; if people are required to be used as means to an end to produce greater utility - that action is justified - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
It also makes no allowance for human relationships and requires that one should adopt a clinical, cold and possibly callous assessment of a situation - any appeal to sentimentality, empathy or interpersonal relationships must be deemed an irrelevant obstruction to producing the utmost utility.
It also has a highly simplistic notion in that happiness can be equated with pleasure ; when human experience, history and cultural traditions reveal that self-sacrifice and heroism are highly admired.
Is not happiness - an abstract subjective concept - immeasurable ?

Because there were major criticisms and concerns with Bentham's 'Act' Utilitarianism; Rule utilitarianism was developed by Mill to counter the more self-centred aspects of Act's overly pragmatic flexibility towards one's own whims and desires.
For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action. It stresses the greater utility of following a given rule in general, arguing that the practice of following some rule in all instances will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.Rule utilitarianism deems that people are happier if their society follows rules to guarantee people know what types of behaviour they can expect from others in given situations. Therefore utilitarians can justify a system that keeps to the rules unless there is a strong reason for breaking them.
A major criticism must therefore be that adhering to rules which are axiomatically lacking in promoting utility in a specific circumstance, irrespective of the collective benefits; cannot be considered as right action within that situation for the individual ; and to make any attempt to resolve or remedy that lack of utility would resort to a return to a personaist , subjective 'act' utilitarianism ; which contravenes the overriding principle inherant within rule utilitarianism that the needs of the many outweigh any needs of the few; or one.
This imbalance between the precedent given towards majority interest and the ignoring of minority concerns led to a restructuring of utilitarianism to accommodate and reconcile this conflict.
Preference utilitarianism , whose main proponent is Peter Singer ; insists that any severe detriment to the minority within rule utilitarianism e.g. the justification of slavery , or the execution of an innocent in order to prevent a riot and further death ; must be remedied by a compromise between all parties to a 'best preference satisfaction' where rather than the the best-possible pleasure for one party , a solution is found in which the possible optimal preference for happiness is achieved for all parties.


There are various types of questions you may get asked:

* You may get asked to explain Bentham's Hedonic Calculus or Mill's Utilitarianism
* You may be required to evaluate the theory or compare it to another theory.
* You may be asked to apply Utilitarianism to one of the issues studied.

The following are AS exam questions written by OCR:

(a) Describe and explain the main principles of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism has nothing at all in common with religious ethics’. Discuss. [17]



(a) Explain a Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment. [33]

(b) ‘A Utilitarian approach to issues raised by fertility treatment leads to wrong moral choices.’ [17]



(a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) To what extent is Utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia? [17]

This AS question is from January 2005:

(a) Explain how Utilitarianism might be applied to embryo research. [33]

(b) To what extent can embryo research be justified? [17]

This question is from June 2005:

(a) Explain the main differences between Utilitarianism and the ethics of Kant. [33]

(b) 'Happiness is the most important consideration in ethics.' Discuss. [17]

This A2 question is from June 2005:

Compare and contrast Utilitarianism with the ethics of the religion you have studied. [45]

This AS question is from January 2006:

(a) Explain how Bentham's version of Utilitarianism can be used to decide on the right course of action. [33]

(b) Evaluate a Utilitarian approach to abortion. [17]

This is an AS question from June 2006:

(a) Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism is a good approach to genetic engineering.’ Discuss. [17]

This A2 exam question is from June 2006:

'Utilitarianism is the best approach to environmental issues.' Discuss. [45]

This AS question came up in January 2007:

(a) Explain the main differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. [33

(b) ‘Rule Utilitarianism ignores consequences.’ Discuss. [17]

These questions are both from June 2007:

(a) Explain the main strengths of Mill’s version of Utilitarianism. [33]

(b) ‘Mill’s Utilitarianism has no serious weaknesses.’ Discuss. [17]



(a) Explain how Utilitarianism might be applied to the issues surrounding the right to a child. [33]

(b) ‘Utilitarianism can lead to wrong moral decisions.’ Discuss. [17]

VISIT THIS WEBSITE !!! http://www.rsrevision.com/diagrams/a_level_exams.html


When dealing with the religious aspects of Utilitarianism one must address its inherant conflicting ideals with the major religions which generally adhere to deontological 'natural law' ethical systems, the commands and statutes by religious founders, or even 'virtue ethics'.
Yet many progressive or reformed versions of the major faiths have a predilection towards a relaxation of the ethical inflexibility to a more situationist approach.
Fletcher's 'situationist ethics' is prone towards adopting a pragmatism and relativism which veers towards corresponding with preference utilitarianism ; where rather than maintaining a rigid legalistic system of ethics ; a flexibility towards compromise and accommodation for the benefits of the entire faith community may be considered as the best option e.g. contemporary liberal christian groups allowing remarriage for the divorced , or the blessing of same-sex unions.
Although utilitarianism is antagonistic to major religions in that one's moral authenticity , worth and dignity usually corresponds with a good motive and intention and an idealised sense of duty ; there are some religious groups which enforce the major ethical concerns are those which sustain, support and promote their religious community - and for these the application of a utilitarian ethical system may be collectively beneficial e.g. within reformed liberal judaism, sufism, reformed progressive christianity and community-based faith structures e.g. Quakers[Society of Friends] ; Baptist chapters , Jehovah's witnesses etc. The notion of the pleasure/pain principles could very easily be accommodated into certain varieties of Buddhism; where the renunciation of self-interest for the sake of the collective could be achieved through a utilitarian agenda structure where only the ultimate objective would differ; but not the means of achieving it.

Lesson Plan

a] Brief Re-cap over what was learnt in The 'Psychology of Religion'
b] Revision Notes from Psych & Religion 4 & 8 - 14 pages within the textbook will provide virtually everything one requires to pass an exam question.
c] The Exam is on June 2 - now there are only nine classes left ; but we should be able to get through with revision of the entire syllabus.
d] Now I'm going to ask you a little quiz : Only ten questions ; half deal with what you've studied with Peter on Psychology and Religion ; the other half are for your benefit and mine - they may seem stupid or irrelevant or really tough and too complicated ; but I ask you to bear with me - and hopefully you'll be able to see at the end the point I'm trying to get across. You're studying a subject where you have to stand on your own feet and think for yourselves - and in order for you to pass this exam you're going to have to know how to argue ; even argue against things you personally believe in.

Separate the class into 2 groups :

Quiz
1. A Bottle of Wine costs £10 . The Wine inside the bottle costs £9 more than the bottle itself ; how much are each ?

A: Wine £9.50 & Bottle 50p
LESSON - ALWAYS READ THE QUESTION - always refer to every detail within an argument and the known facts and the desired criterion ! don't guess or presume - if you're not sure - work it out from what you've got in the question - nine times out of ten the question will give you hints as to how to answer it....

More people fail exams not because they don't know the answers ; but by simply failing to read the question properly and giving the wrong answer !

2. Sigmund Freud said that Religion was a] an Illness, b] that it was Pathological[i.e. dangerously harmful] and c] that it is derived from unsuccessfully suppressed sexual trauma.
How would Jung have argued against these claims ?

A : a] It's natural , b] it's beneficial , c] it derives from archetypes and blueprints within the collective and personal unconscious.

3. What colour is the Sun ?

A: It looks yellow , it's called a yellow star , but if you ask a scientific expert they will tell you that the greatest amount of light emanating from the Sun is in the GREEN band of the electromagnetic spectrum.

LESSON : a] Don't always presume that science will naturally back up the apparent , obvious answer - never presume - always check the science first - If Freud says all men are victims of the oedipus complex, and all women suffer from Penis-envy ; check what contemporary clinical psychology says . If Jung talks about universal archetypes within the collective unconscious - check out world history - check out the anthropological data - CHECK THE SCIENCE.
b] CHECK THE OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS FOR YOURSELF e.g. on the abortion issue one side will try and convince you [WITH SCIENCE} that a foetus is is a living thinking human being from just a few weeks after conception ; whereas a contrary viewpoint will try and use science to prove that a foetus is merely a mindless collection of cells up until a few weeks before birth
- CHECK THE SCIENCE FROM AN IMPARTIAL INFORMED SOURCE !
But also remember what Rizzuto said in his arguments against Freud
"Science does not have the sole claim to truth" ;
A scientist may say that a star is a huge ball of flaming gas - but we may respond 'that's not what a star is - that's only what a star is made of'.
Science cannot answer every question - philosophy can sometimes get a lot closer to credible , feasible, tenable answers. And who knows ? maybe some religions have actually got close to a real purpose and meaning for our existence ?

4. Modern Society speaks of a 'Mid-Life Crisis' where one becomes anxious , one feels one has lost direction and a sense of purpose and feels alienated from the community - Jung would say this was the beginning of a new process - what is the process called ; and what [according to Jung] is the outcome ?

A: INDIVIDUATION - Where one integrates and assimilates the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious trough a dialectical process to synthesise a new perspective on life.

5. A Gunman hijacks an aeroplane while it's still on the ground ; he demands £1 million and two parachutes. The authorities give him these ; the plane takes off and while over the desert the hijacker grabs one of the parachutes jumps out the plane with the million pounds and is never seen again. Why did he ask for two parachutes ?

A: If he'd only asked for one parachute the authorities could have sabotaged it ; by asking for two there was the potential that the hijacker could take an innocent hostage ; therefore both parachutes could NOT be sabotaged ; in order to be safe ; the hijacker HAD to ask for two - not one.

MORAL OF THE STORY : In Religion, Philosophy and Ethics - sometimes you simply CANNOT argue one principle on its own - or isolate one special set of circumstances for a specific occasion without considering the consequences for the universal . Kant called this universalisation of Morality 'the categorical imperative' - for instance The Catholic church and Islam says no to artificial contraception because they argue that sex should be about a married couple unifying their love and being open to life , but the Anglican church says yes you can use artificial contraception - to Anglicans this means that sex does not have to be open to life - sex is for unifying partners . But then what about homosexual sex - that unifies loving partners ; and of course it isn't open to life but that doesn't matter does it ? so if we apply Kant's categorical imperative Anglicanism should have no problem whatsoever with homosexual sexual activity - but some of them do have serious problems with it...but they have real problems explaining why it's ethically unacceptable because they abandoned the principle they used to justify their opposition to it ; and thus end up having to resort to the Bible. Now whether they're right or wrong is beside the point - their one principle they took away has had consequences within another moral issue they would have preferred not to consider in such a way. Sometimes moral and ethical issues are inextricably linked by invisible chains !

Another example - take for instance abortion - The liberal view states 'a woman has a right to her own body and can do what she pleases with it ' - now what happens when it comes to surrogacy ? one woman provided the genetic material , another provided the womb , one made the baby, another grew the baby - who takes precedent ? What if one wishes to abort the foetus but the other doesn't ? sometimes one principle standing on its own is never enough - there may be too many external factors or contradictory circumstances. Beware of soundbites - be fearful of the person with only one book !

6. How does Malinowski argue against Freud's comparison of humanity with the animal kingdom and Freud's conclusion that the extended social Oedipus Complex creates a dominant male in the primal horde which becomes a Totem ?

A: a] Not all races are Patriarchal or have a culture of male dominancy or were gathered into collective hordes.
b] even though the dominant male phenomenon is present in the animal kingdom ; the oedipus complex isn't present !
c] Not all societies have totems .
d] Totems and gods are far from distinctly male - in fact the earliest evidence states the contrary; Fertility goddesses etc
e] Animism - the bestowing of life or 'spiritual power' is not a universal phenomena among cultures.

GK Chesterton asked the question : "Why do we put flowers on graves" ? Who knows why? It's just one of those weird traditions from the past which has lost its origin..we'll never know how or why it started ; and it would be wrong for a scientist or anthropologist to presume or guess - the simple answer is we don't know. Freud tries to gather a tiny amount of isolated data and universalise it and turn it into a cultural collective psychological scenario - he can't do it !

7. Three Men go to a cheap hotel for the night - each pays £10 for a £30 room with three beds and an ensuite bathroom - They get to their room and discover that the shower's broken; so they ring reception . The manager apologises and promises a small refund.
The manager calls over the bellboy and gives him five pounds and tells him to split it three ways amongst the guests:
Now the bellboy hasn't any small change to share out £1.66 to each of the three ; so instead he gives each man a pound and pockets two pound for himself.

Now each man paid £10 and got £1 back so they now paid only £9
Three times nine is £27 ; and the bellboy has £2 making £29
But there was £30 to start off with - so what happened to the missing pound ?

A: There is no missing pound - three guests paid nine pounds - twenty seven pounds - the manager has 25, the bellboy has 2 !

Lesson - DON'T BE FOOLED BY TRICKS - BY SLEIGHT OF HAND !
Beware of Enthymemes ; beware of hidden arguments or fallacies or the misuse of predicates in arguments by calling two separate different phenomena or principles tha same name or giving them equal value - always check the VALIDITY and COGENCY of a whole argument ; not merely separate parts of it stuck together to make an apparent whole when there are actually gaping holes throughout....


8. Freud conceded that religion did have some good aspects e.g. it promoted communal spirit, it prevented anarchy and it provided comfort and consolation ; but apart from Freud's perspective that it was 'a pack of lies and self-delusion' and should be abolished ; Freud argued it was oppressive and ineffective . Given the history of religion and the abuses of the rights of women and minorities ; How it's oppressive is obvious , but why and how , according to Freud , is religion ineffective ?

A: People still sin and fail to live the religious ideals , the alleged comfort and solace that an afterlife or divine justice or that personal sacrifice will be rewarded do not prevent people becoming anxious or depressed or angry , people still break the law etc.

9. You've gone on holiday to Transylvania with three psychologist friends ; and discovered that not only are half the inhabitants vampires, half of these humans and vampires are insane. This gives you four types of people :
a] Sane Humans - Who always tell the truth
b] Sane Vampires - Who always lie
c] Insane Humans - Who perceive reality the wrong way so even though they try and tell the truth , they always make false statements.
d] Insane vampires - Who lie about their false perceptions so always make true statements.

You go into a Tavern: A stranger sits in the corner drinking ale.
The owner of the tavern is worried about the stranger and asks you and your companions for help in trying to determine who the stranger is .
The first psychologist approaches the stranger and asks him :
"Are you a sane human" ? The stranger responded but the first psychologist couldn't tell what the stranger was....
The second psychologist asked "Are you a sane vampire ?" The stranger answered but the second psychologist couldn't tell what the stranger was.
The third psychologist asked " Are you an insane vampire?" and the stranger answered but even now the third psychologist couldn't tell who or what the stranger was....

Now the psychologists turn to you and say - "you go and ask him a question and try and find out who he is"

Now you're very good at logic and you laugh at your three friends and say you don't need to ask the stranger any questions - as you already know who and what he is !

A: The stranger is a Sane Vampire ! How could you determine this ? the only question that wasn't asked was "Are you an insane human" ? A sane human would say no, an insane human would say no, an insane vampire would say no, ONLY a sane vampire could answer 'yes !' Notice the pattern ? you want to find out if someone is a sane human - you ask are they an insane vampire. Asking the direct opposite gives you the right answer.

LESSON/Moral of the story : Sometimes a Direct question , a direct approach - won't get you the right answer or the solution to a problem - sometimes you have to be open to the possibility that the only way of discovering the nature of a principle or an ethical stance or a philosophical argument is to approach it from behind - to argue using a directly opposite hypothesis or set of principles...
e.g. when you kill in self-defence are you taking life or saving life ? Is Euthanasia an argument about dying with dignity , or living with dignity ?
How can one argue against the Cosmological arguments for the existence of God if one stays within the argument's remit of there having to be an uncaused cause at the beginning of all things? maybe you have to use an opposite argument ?


10. Supposing a Goth travelled back in time and arrived in Jung's study , and began spouting all his beliefs and views on life ; How would Jung use the Persona and Shadow archetypes to analyse him ?

A] The Persona archetype is the mask we wear in society ; the Shadow archetype is the projection of the darker sides of our character onto others.



###################################################################################


Now I want you to consider what I've said in regard to these questions and go back to two subjects you've already studied : Abortion and the Cosmological arguments for the existence of God ; because tomorrow we're going to go through every aspect of the abortion debate all the different positions ; and the arguments AGAINST every position [in order for you to answer a question on the subject you have to learn both sides to every argument] - and on Thursday we're going to go through the Cosmological arguments - and the arguments against them


#####################################################################################

Now I've already shown you a few examples regarding how you should begin to think ;

Now I'm going to show you the way NOT to think.

This is a very , very popular way of arguing , you'll find it everywhere ; especially in newspapers and magazines or on the news or Tricia or Jeremy Kyle or Loose Women or whatever....

...and it's known as 'Reverse induction' or Thinking Backwards :

Now the most famous example is by GK Chesterton and it's known as the fire poker argument; now it comes from over a century ago so we have to remember this is a time when most people didn't have central heating but rather used coal fires :

On this planet the weirdest of animals is the human being ; the animal that couldn't keep its hair on ; its natural form may be its beauty but it's also its shame ; like a swimmer who's lost their clothes ; left their shirt and underwear and jeans on the cotton bush ;left their dress by the silkworm ; left their suit or jumper on the sheep ; left their shoes on the cow...but against the planet's harsh elements no clothing or shelter will provide enough warmth for them - they need fire ! Now fire is the protector of life but also a bringer of death ; in order to live we must stay near the fire , but to touch the fire brings injury - and so to keep the fire burning we need an ambassador, an emissary - something to shake away the embers and keep the wood or coal amidst the flames - the fire poker ! and through the poker's time in the fire it becomes scorched, discoloured , damaged, twisted....and if the poker was alive, it would be proud of those battle scars it endured in its ongoing mission to keep the fire going and save human life.

This is the right way to think about fire pokers - we start at the beginning with first principles and move from cause to effect , from actions to consequences, all according to degree of importance and purpose.

Now imagine someone comes along and sees the poker and says :

"Poor poker; it's crooked."
Then he asks how it came to be crooked; and is told that there
is a thing in the world (with which his temperament has hitherto left him
unacquainted)--a thing called fire. He points out, very kindly and
clearly, how silly it is of people, if they want a straight poker, to put
it into a chemical combustion which will very probably heat and warp it.
"Let us abolish fire," he says, "and then we shall have perfectly straight
pokers. Why should you want a fire at all?" They explain to him that a
creature called Man wants a fire, because he has no fur or feathers. He
gazes dreamily at the embers for a few seconds, and then shakes his head.
"I doubt if such an animal is worth preserving," he says. "He must
eventually go under in the cosmic struggle when pitted against
well-armoured and warmly protected species, who have wings and trunks and
spires and scales and horns and shaggy hair. If Man cannot live without
these luxuries, you had better abolish Man."

See how it works ?
you can do it with anything - you write a message on a piece of paper
who's ruined this paper ? who's wasted this pen ?
you mean you killed a tree to get paper ? you made plastics from petrol which is dead plant and animal material from millions of years ago - you grave robber ! you're using dead bodies to write on a dead tree ?
humans are babarians ! humans should be abolished...

Think this is stupid ?
Well think about this - you're breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide - you're very life is promoting global warming - YOU are melting the polar icecaps - you're killing the rainforest - it's you - your carbon footprint which is killing us all - your life is killing us all !
My friend knows a couple of eco-warriors near where he lives - they're very proud that they aborted their child because it meant they did their bit to protect the environment .
Western goverrnments are now tying food and monetary aid to the developing world on the proviso that they begin population control programmes...one has to wonder which is more cruel - allowing millions to die from hunger and disease or preventing those millions from ever being born ?

Ok now you see how 'thinking backwards' works ; you're going to find it everywhere !
And yes the arguments may seem right, or even valid on occasions ; they may indeed have the right conclusions - but that's only a coincidence; the way the way they've gone about the reasoning, the thought processes, the direction of thinking from causes to effects, from principles to consequences - they've got all the thinking wrong ! It's thinking ; but thinking backwards !

Beware of thinking backwards - BUT - always keep an eye out for it ; because once you notice it it will be your greatest asset in being able to argue against a position !

One of the MAIN sources of 'Thinking backwards' in all you've studied is found in certain aspects of Utilitarianism...and that's what we're going to revise next.

#################################################################################

Utilitarianism

Class interaction .

Now you have to remember that Utilitarianism is a form of ABSOLUTIST NORMATIVE ETHICS ; as opposed to relativist, descriptive or non-cognitivist ethics

What is moral absolutism ?

a] Utilitarianism is known as consequentialist or teleological form of ethics
[ask for definitions] as opposed to deontological ethics

b] Utilitarianism is grounded upon the principle of Utility - No such thing as objective right and wrong in themselves - but right action [that whch promotes utility] and that wrong action [which dimishes utility] - the ENDS always justifies the MEANS

c] Jeremy Bentham - Hedonism - Hedonic Calculus - The greatest good for the greatest amount of people

i] intensity
ii] duration
iii] certainty/uncertainty
iv] closeness/remoteness
v] fecundity
vi] purity
vii] extent

d] Act Utilitarianism

pluses - it's flexible - able to judge, discern assess every particular circumstance

minuses - it can justify virtually anything if it provides the greater benefit to the decision maker at the time - selfish, narcissistic, self-delusional.
- the idea of using hedonic calculus for every decision is not only time-consuming, on many occasions many factors are not only unavailable to us ; they are impossible to discover.
- it can have very extreme consequences - and become ridiculous in practice.

e] John Stuart Mill - addressed the quantitive individualistic nature of act utilitarianism and sought a qualitative form whereby a higher, selfless morality for the true ethical benefit of the many was formulated via a RULE Utilitarianism.

The Benefit of society depends on universal rules which promote higher utility for the greater amount within the collective.

pluses - the extreme consequences of act Utilitarianism are now diminished
- the rule structure protects the general majority from the potentially 'selfish' [but high in personal utility] acts of the individual or a minority group within the collective - all acts are directed by rules towards the common good.

minuses - universal rules might cause great difficulties or injustices on the individual level - e.g. rule to tell the truth and the mad axeman
- rule utilitarianism doesn't necessarily protect minorities or individuals/communities with special or exceptional needs. e.g. it might justify slavery of a minority.
- the formation of drastic , draconian and 'unreasonable' laws as deterrents against others e.g. the death penalty for speeding.
- the possible sacrifice of the individual or minority for the sake of the whole

f] Peter Singer - Preference Utilitarianism - best consequences for all involved. everyone's interests must be considered. Peopl should deliberate on a lifestyle rather than on specific ethical situations

pluses - most of the minuses within act and rule utilitarianism vanishes

minuses - the tyranny of the collective's best interests against the individual's free-will.
- The potential for Moral hazard whereby people's attitudes change in regard to the general rule - e.g. complacency , laziness, lassitude and acceptability of further 'broader' mores...
- the pragmatic protean nature of the rules changing according to immediate need of the collective.
- Peter Singer has included into all this the notion of Personhood and autonomy and capability [all people are not equal !]

Utilitarianism requires foresight !
Unforeseen consequences !
Unpredictability !

Justice for all vs Happiness for the Majority - The Price may be too high ?

High & Low Pleasures - The Quantitive and the qualitive

The necessity of pain ? The problem of Pleasure

The absolute necessity for human authenticity of Motive ?

Utilitarianism is PRACTICAL !

other types :
[ask if they can guess what each means]
Motive Utilitarianism, Negative Utilitarianism , average utilitarianism, universal utilitarianism

The problem of Determinism - if we are in a deterministic universe none of us are responsible ; if we're not then the consequences of our actions are utterly unpredictable as they depend on other people's actions !

Discussion of Ethical dillemma examples in the final minutes.

Primer [2004] written by and starring Shane Carruth

Ever watched this ?
Warning ; It'll play games with your mind !

Well I'm Back....With an Appeal to Abbot Hugh.

The Daily Mail's Simon Caldwell has revealed that His Holiness has asked Abbot Hugh Gilbert of Pluscarden to be our next Archbishop of Westminster ; yet due of his assistant's leaving of the community ; he has apparently refused at the eleventh hour for fear of compromising his community....

I repeat the appeal I made on Holy Smoke Blog http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/01/has_abbot_hugh_gilbert_turned_down_westminster:

Abbot Hugh - if this is the will of the Holy Spirit; is not the price too high to refuse ; could not this 'barrier' and refusal to trust that "that which is good and true cannot be lost" [i.e. your community] be an attempt to thwart that which is meant to be ?

Might I also suggest there is a subtle vanity and pride in refusing ? The enemy works exceedingly well when he provokes doubt into anxiety.


Run to the cross - seek Him-who-is-Truth-made-flesh. Run to your Blessed Mother. Run to your heavenly brothers and sisters who gave their lives to and for the Church you so love and serve....

Remember our country's last denoted defender of the faith - GK Chesterton - Did he not tell us that adversity is merely a wrongly perceived adventure ?
Remember St Francis de Sales - It is never enough to love someone ; they have to know they are loved ! are you the man the Holy Spirit wishes to let this country know that they are loved by God and called to conversion and perfection ?

St John Bosco tells us to "always make the first move".

The words of St Paul have NEVER let me down ; I appeal to you to seek wisdom within...

p.s. Call me overly suspicious : If there is something..anything...untoward in all this...please let right be done [1 Cor 3:19-23] ; the price is too high to do otherwise.

His Holiness' Barangaroo Speech

Dear Young People,

What a delight it is to greet you here at Barangaroo, on the shores of the magnificent Sydney harbour, with its famous bridge and Opera House. Many of you are local, from the outback or the dynamic multicultural communities of Australian cities. Others of you have come from the scattered islands of Oceania, and others still from Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the Americas. Some of you, indeed, have come from as far as I have, Europe! Wherever we are from, we are here at last in Sydney. And together we stand in our world as God's family, disciples of Christ, empowered by his Spirit to be witnesses of his love and truth for everyone!

I wish firstly to thank the Aboriginal Elders who welcomed me prior to my boarding the boat at Rose Bay. I am deeply moved to stand on your land, knowing the suffering and injustices it has borne, but aware too of the healing and hope that are now at work, rightly bringing pride to all Australian citizens. To the young indigenous - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders - and the Tokelauans, I express my thanks for your stirring welcome. Through you, I send heartfelt greetings to your peoples.

Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Wilson, I thank you for your warm words of welcome. I know that your sentiments resonate in the hearts of the young gathered here this evening, and so I thank you all. Standing before me I see a vibrant image of the universal Church. The variety of nations and cultures from which you hail shows that indeed Christ's Good News is for everyone; it has reached the ends of the earth. Yet I know too that a good number of you are still seeking a spiritual homeland. Some of you, most welcome among us, are not Catholic or Christian. Others of you perhaps hover at the edge of parish and Church life. To you I wish to offer encouragement: step forward into Christ's loving embrace; recognize the Church as your home. No one need remain on the outside, for from the day of Pentecost the Church has been one and universal.

This evening I wish also to include those who are not present among us. I am thinking especially of the sick or mentally ill, young people in prison, those struggling on the margins of our societies, and those who for whatever reason feel alienated from the Church. To them I say: Jesus is close to you! Feel his healing embrace, his compassion and mercy!

Almost two thousand years ago, the Apostles, gathered in the upper room together with Mary and some faithful women, were filled with the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 1:14; 2:4). At that extraordinary moment, which gave birth to the Church, the confusion and fear that had gripped Christ's disciples were transformed into a vigorous conviction and sense of purpose. They felt impelled to speak of their encounter with the risen Jesus whom they had come to call affectionately, the Lord. In many ways, the Apostles were ordinary. None could claim to be the perfect disciple. They failed to recognize Christ (cf. Lk 24:13-32), felt ashamed of their own ambition (cf. Lk 22:24-27), and had even denied him (cf. Lk 22:54-62). Yet, when empowered by the Holy Spirit, they were transfixed by the truth of Christ's Gospel and inspired to proclaim it fearlessly. Emboldened, they exclaimed: repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 2:37-38)! Grounded in the Apostles' teaching, in fellowship, and in the breaking of the bread and prayer (cf. Acts 2:42), the young Christian community moved forward to oppose the perversity in the culture around them (cf. Acts 2:40), to care for one another (cf. Acts 2:44-47), to defend their belief in Jesus in the face of hostility (cf Acts 4:33), and to heal the sick (cf. Acts 5:12-16). And in obedience to Christ's own command, they set forth, bearing witness to the greatest story ever: that God has become one of us, that the divine has entered human history in order to transform it, and that we are called to immerse ourselves in Christ's saving love which triumphs over evil and death. Saint Paul, in his famous speech to the Areopagus, introduced the message in this way: "God gives everything - including life and breath - to everyone ... so that all nations might seek God and, by feeling their way towards Him, succeed in finding him. In fact He is not far from any of us, since it is in Him that we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17: 25-28).

And ever since, men and women have set out to tell the same story, witnessing to Christ's truth and love, and contributing to the Church's mission. Today, we think of those pioneering Priests, Sisters and Brothers who came to these shores, and to other parts of the Pacific, from Ireland, France, Britain and elsewhere in Europe. The great majority were young - some still in their late teens - and when they bade farewell to their parents, brothers and sisters, and friends, they knew they were unlikely ever to return home. Their whole lives were a selfless Christian witness. They became the humble but tenacious builders of so much of the social and spiritual heritage which still today brings goodness, compassion and purpose to these nations. And they went on to inspire another generation. We think immediately of the faith which sustained Blessed Mary MacKillop in her sheer determination to educate especially the poor, and Blessed Peter To Rot in his steadfast resolution that community leadership must always include the Gospel. Think also of your own grandparents and parents, your first teachers in faith. They too have made countless sacrifices of time and energy, out of love for you. Supported by your parish priests and teachers, they have the task, not always easy but greatly satisfying, of guiding you towards all that is good and true, through their own witness - their teaching and living of our Christian faith.

Today, it is my turn. For some of us, it might seem like we have come to the end of the world! For people of your age, however, any flight is an exciting prospect. But for me, this one was somewhat daunting! Yet the views afforded of our planet from the air were truly wondrous. The sparkle of the Mediterranean, the grandeur of the north African desert, the lushness of Asia's forestation, the vastness of the Pacific Ocean, the horizon upon which the sun rose and set, and the majestic splendour of Australia's natural beauty which I have been able to enjoy these last couple of days; these all evoke a profound sense of awe. It is as though one catches glimpses of the Genesis creation story - light and darkness, the sun and the moon, the waters, the earth, and living creatures; all of which are "good" in God's eyes (cf. Gen 1:1 - 2:4). Immersed in such beauty, who could not echo the words of the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: "how majestic is your name in all the earth?" (Ps 8:1).

And there is more - something hardly perceivable from the sky - men and women, made in nothing less than God's own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). At the heart of the marvel of creation are you and I, the human family "crowned with glory and honour" (Ps 8:5). How astounding! With the Psalmist we whisper: "what is man that you are mindful of him?" (Ps 8:4). And drawn into silence, into a spirit of thanksgiving, into the power of holiness, we ponder.

What do we discover? Perhaps reluctantly we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth: erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption. Some of you come from island nations whose very existence is threatened by rising water levels; others from nations suffering the effects of devastating drought. God's wondrous creation is sometimes experienced as almost hostile to its stewards, even something dangerous. How can what is "good" appear so threatening?

And there is more. What of man, the apex of God's creation? Every day we encounter the genius of human achievement. From advances in medical sciences and the wise application of technology, to the creativity reflected in the arts, the quality and enjoyment of people's lives in many ways are steadily rising. Among yourselves there is a readiness to take up the plentiful opportunities offered to you. Some of you excel in studies, sport, music, or dance and drama, others of you have a keen sense of social justice and ethics, and many of you take up service and voluntary work. All of us, young and old, have those moments when the innate goodness of the human person - perhaps glimpsed in the gesture of a little child or an adult's readiness to forgive - fills us with profound joy and gratitude.

Yet such moments do not last. So again, we ponder. And we discover that not only the natural but also the social environment - the habitat we fashion for ourselves - has its scars; wounds indicating that something is amiss. Here too, in our personal lives and in our communities, we can encounter a hostility, something dangerous; a poison which threatens to corrode what is good, reshape who we are, and distort the purpose for which we have been created. Examples abound, as you yourselves know. Among the more prevalent are alcohol and drug abuse, and the exaltation of violence and sexual degradation, often presented through television and the internet as entertainment. I ask myself, could anyone standing face to face with people who actually do suffer violence and sexual exploitation "explain" that these tragedies, portrayed in virtual form, are considered merely "entertainment"?

There is also something sinister which stems from the fact that freedom and tolerance are so often separated from truth. This is fuelled by the notion, widely held today, that there are no absolute truths to guide our lives. Relativism, by indiscriminately giving value to practically everything, has made "experience" all-important. Yet, experiences, detached from any consideration of what is good or true, can lead, not to genuine freedom, but to moral or intellectual confusion, to a lowering of standards, to a loss of self-respect, and even to despair.

Dear friends, life is not governed by chance; it is not random. Your very existence has been willed by God, blessed and given a purpose (cf. Gen 1:28)! Life is not just a succession of events or experiences, helpful though many of them are. It is a search for the true, the good and the beautiful. It is to this end that we make our choices; it is for this that we exercise our freedom; it is in this - in truth, in goodness, and in beauty - that we find happiness and joy. Do not be fooled by those who see you as just another consumer in a market of undifferentiated possibilities, where choice itself becomes the good, novelty usurps beauty, and subjective experience displaces truth.

Christ offers more! Indeed he offers everything! Only he who is the Truth can be the Way and hence also the Life. Thus the "way" which the Apostles brought to the ends of the earth is life in Christ. This is the life of the Church. And the entrance to this life, to the Christian way, is Baptism.

This evening I wish therefore to recall briefly something of our understanding of Baptism before tomorrow considering the Holy Spirit. On the day of your Baptism, God drew you into his holiness (cf. 2 Pet 1:4). You were adopted as a son or daughter of the Father. You were incorporated into Christ. You were made a dwelling place of his Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 6:19). Baptism is neither an achievement, nor a reward. It is a grace; it is God's work. Indeed, towards the conclusion of your Baptism, the priest turned to your parents and those gathered and, calling you by your name said: "you have become a new creation" (Rite of Baptism, 99).

Dear friends, in your homes, schools and universities, in your places of work and recreation, remember that you are a new creation! Not only do you stand before the Creator in awe, rejoicing at his works, you also realize that the sure foundation of humanity's solidarity lies in the common origin of every person, the high-point of God's creative design for the world. As Christians you stand in this world knowing that God has a human face - Jesus Christ - the "way" who satisfies all human yearning, and the "life" to which we are called to bear witness, walking always in his light (cf. ibid., 100).

The task of witness is not easy. There are many today who claim that God should be left on the sidelines, and that religion and faith, while fine for individuals, should either be excluded from the public forum altogether or included only in the pursuit of limited pragmatic goals. This secularist vision seeks to explain human life and shape society with little or no reference to the Creator. It presents itself as neutral, impartial and inclusive of everyone. But in reality, like every ideology, secularism imposes a world-view. If God is irrelevant to public life, then society will be shaped in a godless image, and debate and policy concerning the public good will be driven more by consequences than by principles grounded in truth.

Yet experience shows that turning our back on the Creator's plan provokes a disorder which has inevitable repercussions on the rest of the created order (cf. 1990 World Day of Peace Message, 5). When God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural order, purpose, and the "good" begins to wane. What was ostensibly promoted as human ingenuity soon manifests itself as folly, greed and selfish exploitation. And so we have become more and more aware of our need for humility before the delicate complexity of God's world.

But what of our social environment? Are we equally alert to the signs of turning our back on the moral structure with which God has endowed humanity (cf. 2007 World Day of Peace Message, 8)? Do we recognize that the innate dignity of every individual rests on his or her deepest identity - as image of the Creator - and therefore that human rights are universal, based on the natural law, and not something dependent upon negotiation or patronage, let alone compromise? And so we are led to reflect on what place the poor and the elderly, immigrants and the voiceless, have in our societies. How can it be that domestic violence torments so many mothers and children? How can it be that the most wondrous and sacred human space - the womb - has become a place of unutterable violence?

My dear friends, God's creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity. They cannot, however, be understood apart from a profound reflection upon the innate dignity of every human life from conception to natural death: a dignity conferred by God himself and thus inviolable. Our world has grown weary of greed, exploitation and division, of the tedium of false idols and piecemeal responses, and the pain of false promises. Our hearts and minds are yearning for a vision of life where love endures, where gifts are shared, where unity is built, where freedom finds meaning in truth, and where identity is found in respectful communion. This is the work of the Holy Spirit! This is the hope held out by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is to bear witness to this reality that you were created anew at Baptism and strengthened through the gifts of the Spirit at Confirmation. Let this be the message that you bring from Sydney to the world!

Treason and its dirty tricks....

That it should come to this ?
I am incredulous with both shame and anger at the Catholic Hierarchy in this country; and their duplicity and betrayal of His Holiness in regard to Anglo-catholics and their reception into full communion within Holy Mother Church.

Did any of you read today's front page of The Independent ?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/exclusive-pope-rides-to-rowans-rescue-868695.html

An 'exclusive' which declared His Holiness was trying to keep the Anglican church together by sending in a crack team to Lambeth and telling all Anglo-catholics seeking full communion
to get lost and stay in their own church !!!

Of course this has Ecclestone Square and Tabletista 'anti-Benedictine' and 'anti-Anglo-catholic' propaganda written all over it - The Peppermint Spinster was even quoted in the report ; 'pontificating' through her papal-despising teeth as usual.

How did they think they'd get away with this retreat from reality ?

Yes the Pope does not wish to intervene in the Lambeth debacle and cause such a hyper-reaction that it would create an ultra-protestant pragmatic relativist secular club for those who have nothing better to do on Sundays - The Pope is doing what he can - praying and working behind the scenes to ensure that charity is served to all; and that even our ideological enemies are treated with a courtesy and mercy they wouldn't reciprocate. Yet for all who seek to return to the fold - the doors are open and our arms are extended in welcome - and there will be rejoicing beyond our imagining in Heaven.

To think that the Tablet-maniacs could have the audacity to say that the Pope is not catholic ??? Here's what our real policy is :

Given last Friday, this is an excerpt from the address of Archbishop John J Myers, the Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Pastoral Provision:

"We are working on expanding the mandate of the Pastoral Provision to include those clergy and faithful of “continuing Anglican communities.” We are striving to increase awareness of our apostolate to Anglican Christians who desire to be reconciled with the Holy See. We have experienced the wonder of several Episcopal bishops entering into full communion with the Catholic Church and we continue to receive requests from priests and laity about the Pastoral Provision. "

Does this sound anything remotely like being 'sent away with a flea in their ear ' ; as the Independent's Paul Vallely declares ???

Of course we cannot really blame the reporters at the Independent - they were merely gullible enough to believe that a major catholic media source and the spokespersons for the Catholic hierarchy of England and Wales would actually possess a modicum of integrity and sincerity in reporting the Papal position .

Sadly we all know that Messrs Macintyre and Vallely were hoodwinked with a dose of spin and deceit from all and sundry....

How bitterly ironic that this crowd profess to be so ecumenical ; yet when it comes to real ecumenism they do everything within their power to ensure Anglo-catholics are felt less welcome than Paul Inwood at a music appreciation society.

What's worse is knowing behind it all that there are more than a handful of the Conference of Bishops' hierarchy involved in this conspiracy with the Tablet....Shame on them !!!

People's lives are undergoing great upheaval and the Tablet yet again wants to merely throw custard pies and spread dissension from the wings - anyone from this point who pays to read that rag should head for the confessional immediately afterwards.

The Library....from "Wings of Desire"

Sorry it isn't subtitled ; but to be honest I'm not sure if it isn't even better without them ?

Good for an examination of conscience.....

Think you can beat us ? Think again !

If you can't see the sincerity and love in this man shine out - well you aint human !!!

What happened to the Church - Michael Voris

What happened to the Church - Michael Voris

Be Warned - You might regret reading this....

An Epistemological Nightmare
Raymond M. Smullyan, 1982

Scene 1
Frank is in the office of an eye doctor. The doctor holds up a book and asks "What color is it?" Frank answers, "Red." The doctor says, "Aha, just as I thought! Your whole color mechanism has gone out of kilter. But fortunately your condition is curable, and I will have you in perfect shape in a couple of weeks."

Scene 2
(A few weeks later.) Frank is in a laboratory in the home of an experimental epistemologist. (You will soon find out what that means!) The epistemologist holds up a book and also asks, "What color is this book?" Now, Frank has been earlier dismissed by the eye doctor as "cured." However, he is now of a very analytical and cautious temperament, and will not make any statement that can possibly be refuted. So Frank answers, "It seems red to me."

Epistemologist:
Wrong!

Frank:
I don't think you heard what I said. I merely said that it seems red to me.

Epistemologist:
I heard you, and you were wrong.

Frank:
Let me get this clear; did you mean that I was wrong that this book is red, or that I was wrong that it seems red to me?

Epistemologist:
I obviously couldn't have meant that you were wrong in that it is red, since you did not say that it is red. All you said was that it seems red to you, and it is this statement which is wrong.

Frank:
But you can't say that the statement "It seems red to me" is wrong.

Epistemologist:
If I can't say it, how come I did?

Frank:
I mean you can't mean it.

Epistemologist:
Why not?

Frank:
But surely I know what color the book seems to me!

Epistemologist:
Again you are wrong.

Frank:
But nobody knows better than I how things seem to me.

Epistemologist:
I am sorry, but again you are wrong.

Frank:
But who knows better than I?

Epistemologist:
I do.

Frank:
But how could you have access to my private mental states?

Epistemologist:
Private mental states! Metaphysical hogwash! Look, I am a practical epistemologist. Metaphysical problems about "mind" versus "matter" arise only from epistemological confusions. Epistemology is the true foundation of philosophy. But the trouble with all past epistemologists is that they have been using wholly theoretical methods, and much of their discussion degenerates into mere word games. While other epistemologists have been solemnly arguing such questions as whether a man can be wrong when he asserts that he believes such and such, I have discovered how to settle such questions experimentally.

Frank:
How could you possibly decide such things empirically?

Epistemologist:
By reading a person's thoughts directly.

Frank:
You mean you are telepathic?

Epistemologist:
Of course not. I simply did the one obvious thing which should be done, viz. I have constructed a brain-reading machine--known technically as a cerebroscope--that is operative right now in this room and is scanning every nerve cell in your brain. I thus can read your every sensation and thought, and it is a simple objective truth that this book does not seem red to you.

Frank (thoroughly subdued):
Goodness gracious, I really could have sworn that the book seemed red to me; it sure seems that it seems read to me!

Epistemologist:
I'm sorry, but you are wrong again.

Frank:
Really? It doesn't even seem that it seems red to me? It sure seems like it seems like it seems red to me!

Epistemologist:
Wrong again! And no matter how many times you reiterate the phrase "it seems like" and follow it by "the book is red" you will be wrong.

Frank:
This is fantastic! Suppose instead of the phrase "it seems like" I would say "I believe that." So let us start again at ground level. I retract the statement "It seems red to me" and instead I assert "I believe that this book is red." Is this statement true or false?

Epistemologist:
Just a moment while I scan the dials of the brain-reading machine--no, the statement is false.

Frank:
And what about "I believe that I believe that the book is red"?

Epistemologist (consulting his dials):
Also false. And again, no matter how many times you iterate "I believe," all these belief sentences are false.

Frank:
Well, this has been a most enlightening experience. However, you must admit that it is a little hard on me to realize that I am entertaining infinitely many erroneous beliefs!

Epistemologist:
Why do you say that your beliefs are erroneous?

Frank:
But you have been telling me this all the while!

Epistemologist:
I most certainly have not!

Frank:
Good God, I was prepared to admit all my errors, and now you tell me that my beliefs are not errors; what are you trying to do, drive me crazy?

Epistemologist:
Hey, take it easy! Please try to recall: When did I say or imply that any of your beliefs are erroneous?

Frank:
Just simply recall the infinite sequence of sentences: (1) I believe this book is red; (2) I believe that I believe this book is red; and so forth. You told me that every one of those statements is false.

Epistemologist:
True.

Frank:
Then how can you consistently maintain that my beliefs in all these false statements are not erroneous?

Epistemologist:
Because, as I told you, you don't believe any of them.

Frank:
I think I see, yet I am not absolutely sure.

Epistemologist:
Look, let me put it another way. Don't you see that the very falsity of each of the statements that you assert saves you from an erroneous belief in the preceding one? The first statement is, as I told you, false. Very well! Now the second statement is simply to the effect that you believe the first statement. If the second statement were true, then you would believe the first statement, and hence your belief about the first statement would indeed be in error. But fortunately the second statement is false, hence you don't really believe the first statement, so your belief in the first statement is not in error. Thus the falsity of the second statement implies you do not have an erroneous belief about the first; the falsity of the third likewise saves you from an erroneous belief about the second, etc.

Frank:
Now I see perfectly! So none of my beliefs were erroneous, only the statements were erroneous.

Epistemologist:
Exactly.

Frank:
Most remarkable! Incidentally, what color is the book really?

Epistemologist:
It is red.

Frank:
What!

Epistemologist:
Exactly! Of course the book is red. What's the matter with you, don't you have eyes?

Frank:
But didn't I in effect keep saying that the book is red all along?

Epistemologist:
Of course not! You kept saying it seems red to you, it seems like it seems red to you, you believe it is red, you believe that you believe it is red, and so forth. Not once did you say that it is red. When I originally asked you "What color is the book?" if you had simply answered "red," this whole painful discussion would have been avoided.

Scene 3
Frank comes back several months later to the home of the epistemologist.

Epistemologist:
How delightful to see you! Please sit down.

Frank (seated):
I have been thinking of our last discussion, and there is much I wish to clear up. To begin with, I discovered an inconsistency in some of the things you said.

Epistemologist:
Delightful! I love inconsistencies. Pray tell!

Frank:
Well, you claimed that although my belief sentences were false, I did not have any actual beliefs that are false. If you had not admitted that the book actually is red, you would have been consistent. But your very admission that the book is red, leads to an inconsistency.

Epistemologist:
How so?

Frank:
Look, as you correctly pointed out, in each of my belief sentences "I believe it is red," "I believe that I believe it is red," the falsity of each one other than the first saves me from an erroneous belief in the proceeding one. However, you neglected to take into consideration the first sentence itself. The falsity of the first sentence "I believe it is red," in conjunction with the fact that it is red, does imply that I do have a false belief.

Epistemologist:
I don't see why.

Frank:
It is obvious! Since the sentence "I believe it is red" is false, then I in fact believe it is not red, and since it really is red, then I do have a false belief. So there!

Epistemologist (disappointed):
I am sorry, but your proof obviously fails. Of course the falsity of the fact that you believe it is red implies that you don't believe it is red. But this does not mean that you believe it is not red!

Frank:
But obviously I know that it either is red or it isn't, so if I don't believe it is, then I must believe that it isn't.

Epistemologist:
Not at all. I believe that either Jupiter has life or it doesn't. But I neither believe that it does, nor do I believe that it doesn't. I have no evidence one way or the other.

Frank:
Oh well, I guess you are right. But let us come to more important matters. I honestly find it impossible that I can be in error concerning my own beliefs.

Epistemologist:
Must we go through this again? I have already patiently explained to you that you (in the sense of your beliefs, not your statements) are not in error.

Frank:
Oh, all right then, I simply do not believe that even the statements are in error. Yes, according to the machine they are in error, but why should I trust the machine?

Epistemologist:
Whoever said you should trust the machine?

Frank:
Well, should I trust the machine?

Epistemologist:
That question involving the word "should" is out of my domain. However, if you like, I can refer you to a colleague who is an excellent moralist--he may be able to answer this for you.

Frank:
Oh come on now, I obviously didn't mean "should" in a moralistic sense. I simply meant "Do I have any evidence that this machine is reliable?"

Epistemologist:
Well, do you?

Frank:
Don't ask me! What I mean is should you trust the machine?

Epistemologist:
Should I trust it? I have no idea, and I couldn't care less what I should do.

Frank:
Oh, your moralistic hangup again. I mean, do you have evidence that the machine is reliable?

Epistemologist:
Well of course!

Frank:
Then let's get down to brass tacks. What is your evidence?

Epistemologist:
You hardly can expect that I can answer this for you in an hour, a day, or a week. If you wish to study this machine with me, we can do so, but I assure you this is a matter of several years. At the end of that time, however, you would certainly not have the slightest doubts about the reliability of the machine.

Frank:
Well, possibly I could believe that it is reliable in the sense that its measurements are accurate, but then I would doubt that what it actually measures is very significant. It seems that all it measures is one's physiological states and activities.

Epistemologist:
But of course, what else would you expect it to measure?

Frank:
I doubt that it measures my psychological states, my actual beliefs.

Epistemologist:
Are we back to that again? The machine does measure those physiological states and processes that you call psychological states, beliefs, sensations, and so forth.

Frank:
At this point I am becoming convinced that our entire difference is purely semantical. All right, I will grant that your machine does correctly measure beliefs in your sense of the word "belief," but I don't believe that it has any possibility of measuring beliefs in my sense of the word "believe." In other words I claim that our entire deadlock is simply due to the fact that you and I mean different things by the word "belief."

Epistemologist:
Fortunately, the correctness of your claim can be decided experimentally. It so happens that I now have two brain-reading machines in my office, so I now direct one to your brain to find out what you mean by "believe" and now I direct the other to my own brain to find out what I mean by "believe," and now I shall compare the two readings. Nope, I'm sorry, but it turns out that we mean exactly the same thing by the word "believe."

Frank:
Oh, hang your machine! Do you believe we mean the same thing by the word "believe"?

Epistemologist:
Do I believe it? Just a moment while I check with the machine. Yes, it turns out I do believe it.

Frank:
My goodness, do you mean to say that you can't even tell me what you believe without consulting the machine?

Epistemologist:
Of course not.

Frank:
But most people when asked what they believe simply tell you. Why do you, in order to find out your beliefs, go through the fantastically roundabout process of directing a thought-reading machine to your own brain and then finding out what you believe on the basis of the machine readings?

Epistemologist:
What other scientific, objective way is there of finding out what I believe?

Frank:
Oh, come now, why don't you just ask yourself?

Epistemologist (sadly):
It doesn't work. Whenever I ask myself what I believe, I never get any answer!

Frank:
Well, why don't you just state what you believe?

Epistemologist:
How can I state what I believe before I know what I believe?

Frank:
Oh, to hell with your knowledge of what you believe; surely you have some idea or belief as to what you believe, don't you?

Epistemologist:
Of course I have such a belief. But how do I find out what this belief is?

Frank:
I am afraid we are getting into another infinite regress. Look, at this point I am honestly beginning to wonder whether you may be going crazy.

Epistemologist:
Let me consult the machine. Yes, it turns out that I may be going crazy.

Frank:
Good God, man, doesn't this frighten you?

Epistemologist:
Let me check! Yes, it turns out that it does frighten me.

Frank:
Oh please, can't you forget this damned machine and just tell me whether you are frightened or not?

Epistemologist:
I just told you that I am. However, I only learned of this from the machine.

Frank:
I can see that it is utterly hopeless to wean you away from the machine. Very well, then, let us play along with the machine some more. Why don't you ask the machine whether your sanity can be saved?

Epistemologist:
Good idea! Yes, it turns out that it can be saved.

Frank:
And how can it be saved?

Epistemologist:
I don't know, I haven't asked the machine.

Frank:
Well, for God's sake, ask it!

Epistemologist:
Good idea. It turns out that...

Frank:
It turns out what?

Epistemologist:
It turns out that...

Frank:
Come on now, it turns out what?

Epistemologist:
This is the most fantastic thing I have ever come across! According to the machine the best thing I can do is to cease to trust the machine!

Frank:
Good! What will you do about it?

Epistemologist:
How do I know what I will do about it, I can't read the future?

Frank:
I mean, what do you presently intend to do about it?

Epistemologist:
Good question, let me consult the machine. According to the machine, my current intentions are in complete conflict. And I can see why! I am caught in a terrible paradox! If the machine is trustworthy, then I had better accept its suggestion to distrust it. But if I distrust it, then I also distrust its suggestion to distrust it, so I am really in a total quandary.

Frank:
Look, I know of someone who I think might be really of help in this problem. I'll leave you for a while to consult him. Au revoir!

Scene 4.
(Later in the day at a psychiatrist's office.)

Frank:
Doctor, I am terribly worried about a friend of mine. He calls himself an "experimental epistemologist."

Doctor:
Oh, the experimental epistemologist. There is only one in the world. I know him well!

Frank:
That is a relief. But do you realize that he has constructed a mind-reading device that he now directs to his own brain, and whenever one asks him what he thinks, believes, feels, is afraid of, and so on, he has to consult the machine first before answering? Don't you think this is pretty serious?

Doctor:
Not as serious as it might seem. My prognosis for him is actually quite good.

Frank:
Well, if you are a friend of his, couldn't you sort of keep an eye on him?

Doctor:
I do see him quite frequently, and I do observe him much. However, I don't think he can be helped by so-called "psychiatric treatment." His problem is an unusual one, the sort that has to work itself out. And I believe it will.

Frank:
Well, I hope your optimism is justified. At any rate I sure think I need some help at this point!

Doctor:
How so?

Frank:
My experiences with the epistemologist have been thoroughly unnerving! At this point I wonder if I may be going crazy; I can't even have confidence in how things appear to me. I think maybe you could be helpful here.

Doctor:
I would be happy to but cannot for a while. For the next three months I am unbelievably overloaded with work. After that, unfortunately, I must go on a three-month vacation. So in six months come back and we can talk this over.

Scene 5.
(Same office, six months later.)

Doctor:
Before we go into your problems, you will be happy to hear that your friend the epistemologist is now completely recovered.

Frank:
Marvelous, how did it happen?

Doctor:
Almost, as it were, by a stroke of fate--and yet his very mental activities were, so to speak, part of the "fate." What happened was this: For months after you last saw him, he went around worrying "should I trust the machine, shouldn't I trust the machine, should I, shouldn't I, should I, shouldn't I." (He decided to use the word "should" in your empirical sense.) He got nowhere! So he then decided to "formalize" the whole argument. He reviewed his study of symbolic logic, took the axioms of first-order logic, and added as nonlogical axioms certain relevant facts about the machine. Of course the resulting system was inconsistent--he formally proved that he should trust the machine if and only if he shouldn't, and hence that he both should and should not trust the machine. Now, as you may know, in a system based on classical logic (which is the logic he used), if one can prove so much as a single contradictory proposition, then one can prove any proposition, hence the whole system breaks down. So he decided to use a logic weaker than classical logic--a logic close to what is known as "minimal logic"--in which the proof of one contradiction does not necessarily entail the proof of every proposition. However, this system turned out too weak to decide the question of whether or not he should trust the machine. Then he had the following bright idea. Why not use classical logic in his system even though the resulting system is inconsistent? Is an inconsistent system necessarily useless? Not at all! Even though given any proposition, there exists a proof that it is true and another proof that it is false, it may be the case that for any such pair of proofs, one of them is simply more psychologically convincing than the other, so simply pick the proof you actually believe! Theoretically the idea turned out very well--the actual system he obtained really did have the property that given any such pair of proofs, one of them was always psychologically far more convincing than the other. Better yet, given any pair of contradictory propositions, all proofs of one were more convincing than any proof of the other. Indeed, anyone except the epistemologist could have used the system to decide whether the machine could be trusted. But with the epistemologist, what happened was this: He obtained one proof that he should trust the machine and another proof that he should not. Which proof was more convincing to him, which proof did he really "believe"? The only way he could find out was to consult the machine! But he realized that this would be begging the question, since his consulting the machine would be a tacit admission that he did in fact trust the machine. So he still remained in a quandary.

Frank:
So how did he get out of it?

Doctor:
Well, here is where fate kindly interceded. Due to his absolute absorption in the theory of this problem, which consumed about his every waking hour, he became for the first time in his life experimentally negligent. As a result, quite unknown to him, a few minor units of his machine blew out! Then, for the first time, the machine started giving contradictory information--not merely subtle paradoxes, but blatant contradictions. In particular, the machine one day claimed that the epistemologist believed a certain proposition and a few days later claimed he did not believe that proposition. And to add insult to injury, the machine claimed that he had not changed his belief in the last few days. This was enough to simply make him totally distrust the machine. Now he is fit as a fiddle.

Frank:
This is certainly the most amazing thing I have ever heard! I guess the machine was really dangerous and unreliable all along.

Doctor:
Oh, not at all; the machine used to be excellent before the epistemologist's experimental carelessness put it out of whack.

Frank:
Well, surely when I knew it, it couldn't have been very reliable.

Doctor:
Not so, Frank, and this brings us to your problem. I know about your entire conversation with the epistemologist--it was all tape-recorded.

Frank:
Then surely you realize the machine could not have been right when it denied that I believed the book was red.

Doctor:
Why not?

Frank:
Good God, do I have to go through all this nightmare again? I can understand that a person can be wrong if he claims that a certain physical object has a certain property, but have you ever known a single case when a person can be mistaken when he claims to have or not have a certain sensation?

Doctor:
Why, certainly! I once knew a Christian Scientist who had a raging toothache; he was frantically groaning and moaning all over the place. When asked whether a dentist might not cure him, he replied that there was nothing to be cured. Then he was asked, "But do you not feel pain?" He replied, "No, I do not feel pain; nobody feels pain, there is no such thing as pain, pain is only an illusion." So here is a case of a man who claimed not to feel pain, yet everyone present knew perfectly well that he did feel pain. I certainly don't believe he was lying, he was just simply mistaken.

Frank:
Well, all right, in a case like that. But how can one be mistaken if one asserts his belief about the color of a book?

Doctor:
I can assure you that without access to any machine, if I asked someone what color is this book, and he answered, "I believe it is red," I would be very doubtful that he really believed it. It seems to me that if he really believed it, he would answer, "It is red" and not "I believe it is red" or "It seems red to me." The very timidity of his response would be indicative of his doubts.

Frank:
But why on earth should I have doubted that it was red?

Doctor:
You should know that better than I. Let us see now, have you ever in the past had reason to doubt the accuracy of your sense perception?

Frank:
Why, yes. A few weeks before visiting the epistemologist, I suffered from an eye disease, which did make me see colors falsely. But I was cured before my visit.

Doctor:
Oh, so no wonder you doubted it was red! True enough, your eyes perceived the correct color of the book, but your earlier experience lingered in your mind and made it impossible for you to really believe it was red. So the machine was right!

Frank:
Well, all right, but then why did I doubt that I believed it was true?

Doctor:
Because you didn't believe it was true, and unconsciously you were smart enough to realize the fact. Besides, when one starts doubting one's own sense perceptions, the doubt spreads like an infection to higher and higher levels of abstraction until finally the whole belief system becomes one doubting mass of insecurity. I bet that if you went to the epistemologist's office now, and if the machine were repaired, and you now claimed that you believe the book is red, the machine would concur.

No, Frank, the machine is--or, rather, was--a good one. The epistemologist learned much from it, but misused it when he applied it to his own brain. He really should have known better than to create such an unstable situation. The combination of his brain and the machine each scrutinizing and influencing the behavior of the other led to serious problems in feedback. Finally the whole system went into a cybernetic wobble. Something was bound to give sooner or later. Fortunately, it was the machine.

Frank:
I see. One last question, though. How could the machine be trustworthy when it claimed to be untrustworthy?

Doctor:
The machine never claimed to be untrustworthy, it only claimed that the epistemologist would be better off not trusting it. And the machine was right.

Be ye perfect...

May the grace of God preserve me from :
A comfort-loving life,
An unrestrained tongue,
A dissipated mind,
An unexamined conscience,
Slothful prayers,
Slovenly sacraments,
An esteem of myself, and
A love of anything short of God.

Amen

[F. W. Faber]

Jealous...

Regrettably last Saturday we had two members of our department off work ; so I was unable to attend the Pontifical Mass in the Extraordinary Rite [or should I now say Gregorian Rite ? such a wonderful name ! The watcher's rite - so symbolic of our transcending space and time to calvary itself !!] at Westminster Cathedral.
Many Catholics in the blogosphere attended and their blogs are laden with details.
The words of Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyas in the interview prior to the Mass brought me to tears ;

Many of the difficulties come out because they don’t know the reality of the Gregorian Rite – this is the just [correct] name for the Extraordinary Form, because this Mass was never prevented, never.
Today for many bishops it is difficult because they don’t have priests who don’t know Latin. Many seminaries give very few hours to Latin – not enough to give the necessary preparation to celebrate in a good way the Extraordinary Form.
Others think that the Holy Father is going against the Second Vatican Council.
That is absolute ignorance.
The Fathers of the Council, never celebrated a Mass other than the Gregorian one.
It [the Novus Ordo] came after the Council … The Holy Father, who is a theologian and who was in the preparation for the Council, is acting exactly in the way of the Council, offering with freedom the different kinds of celebration.
This celebration, the Gregorian one, was the celebration of the Church during more than a thousand years … Others say one cannot celebrate with the back to the people. This is ridiculous. The Son of God has sacrificed himself to the Father, with his face to the Father. It is not against the people. It is for the people …

[notice the re-affirmation of the true notion of a sacrificial shepherding ordained priesthood ?]

When our illustrious Damian Thompson asked :
So would the Pope like to see many ordinary parishes making provision for the Gregorian Rite?
His Eminence's reply:
All the parishes. Not many – all the parishes, because this is a gift of God. He offers these riches, and it is very important for new generations to know the past of the Church. This kind of worship is so noble, so beautiful – the deepest theologians’ way to express our faith. The worship, the music, the architecture, the painting, makes a whole that is a treasure. The Holy Father is willing to offer to all the people this possibility, not only for the few groups who demand it but so that everybody knows this way of celebrating the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

It's Back !!! After decades of suppression - it's not going away - all we had hoped for but would never have dreamed of envisaging only a handful of years ago - has happened !!! This is the guarantee of Peter.

...of course the 'Tabletista' did their 'Rumpelstiltskin routine' in the shape of that grande-dame Eleni Curti :
Your Eminence, I think many Catholics are rather confused by this new emphasis on the Tridentine Rite, mainly because we were taught that the new Rite represented real progress, and many of us who have grown up with it see it as real progress, that there are Eucharistic ministers, women on the sanctuary, that we are all priests, prophets and kings. This new emphasis to many of us seems to deny that.

His Eminence countered:
What is progress? "Progredire", means [offering] the best to God… I am surprised, because many young people are enthusiastic with the celebration of the Gregorian Rite …

In the Motu Proprio, the Pope's emphasis is on one Rite and two forms, and he describes the Tridentine Rite as "extraordinary". Extraordinary therefore means exceptional, not something that we celebrate every Sunday.

Not "exceptional". Extraordinary means "not ordinary", not "exceptional."

Should it therefore supersede the new Rite? Should we go back?

It is not going back: it is taking a treasure which is present, but was not provided.
… But it takes time.
The application of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council took years. It takes time to understand the deep profundity of the old Rite.
The Holy Father is not returning to the past; he is taking a treasure from the past to offer it alongside the rich celebration of the new Rite. The second Eucharistic prayer of the new Rite is actually the oldest one [in the Church’s entire liturgy]. It’s not a matter of confrontation but of fraternal dialogue.

Now this is only the end of the beginning : Rough times lie ahead ; battles will be fought, personalities will clash; and power-struggles will ensue . Already Bishop Thomas MacMahon appears to have gone on an all-out massacre of the idea by sharing out churches/altars and pulpits with the anglicans ; something so redolent of our present Cardinal's nefarious and sacrilegious machinations of nearly twenty years ago when he was in charge of Arundel and Brighton - but the Bishops , recalcitrant clerics and the professional laity who feel all their power and vaudeville antics are soon to become 'historical anachronistic emotional spasms ' - cannot be allowed to suppress, shanghai or thwart the wishes of Holy Mother Church.

Now one thing really got my goat : Ms Curti's depiction of us all as 'Priests/Prophets/Sovereigns'
In other words , we're the Church now and Rome can get stuffed !
I answered this on Damian Thompson's Holy Smoke Blog:

We are anointed as priest, prophet and king solely because we are incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ , The Church.

This anointing invokes duties and responsibilities afforded by the consequences of Baptismal Grace from which the benefits are solely directed toward a salvific end.

NONE of us are priests, prophets and sovereigns with any autonomy outside the directives of Christ and the Church.
When we indiscriminately defy the church through thought, word and deed ; most significantly through the teaching [and publishing] of heterodoxy, heresy, apostasy and immorality ; by purporting it to be authentic Christian praxis and the ways of 'future-Church'; we renege on everything our anointing calls from us - we alienate ourselves from Christ.

The bitter irony of a 'tabletista' invoking the anointing which they abrogate at every turn to vindicate, excuse and equivocate their reprehensible agenda is arrant derisory hypocrisy ; and how anyone in this thread can accommodate such a perspective , and launch volleys against our host to defend mzzzz Curti's presumption is beyond me.

Novena to The Sacred Heart + Please Remember to Constantly Pray for Priests

http://www.worldpriestday.com/
World Prayer for Priests day was last Friday; but let's remember
that among us all it is our priests who desperately need our prayers.


Divine Jesus, You have said, "Ask and you shall receive; seek and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened to you." Behold me kneeling at Your feet, filled with a lively faith and confidence in the promises dictated by Your Sacred Heart to Saint Margaret Mary. I come to ask this favor: (Mention your request).

To whom can I turn if not to You, Whose Heart is the source of all graces and merits? Where should I seek if not in the treasure which contains all the riches of Your kindness and mercy? Where should I knock if not at the door through which God gives Himself to us and through which we go to God? I have recourse to You, Heart of Jesus. In You I find consolation when afflicted, protection when persecuted, strength when burdened with trials, and light in doubt and darkness.

Dear Jesus, I firmly believe that You can grant me the grace I implore, even though it should require a miracle. You have only to will it and my prayer will be granted. I admit that I am most unworthy of Your favors, but this is not a reason for me to be discouraged. You are the God of mercy, and You will not refuse a contrite heart. Cast upon me a look of mercy, I beg of You, and Your kind Heart will find in my miseries and weakness a reason for granting my prayer.

Sacred Heart, whatever may be Your decision with regard to my request, I will never stop adoring, loving, praising, and serving You. My Jesus, be pleased to accept this my act of perfect resignation to the decrees of Your adorable Heart, which I sincerely desire may be fulfilled in and by me and all Your creatures forever.

Grant me the grace for which I humbly implore You through the Immaculate Heart of Your most sorrowful Mother. You entrusted me to her as her child, and her prayers are all-powerful with You. Amen.

My God, I offer You all my prayers, works, joys, and sufferings in union with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, for the intentions for which He pleads and offers Himself in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, in thanksgiving for Your favors, in reparation for my sins, and in humble supplication for my temporal and eternal welfare, for the needs of our holy Mother the Church, for the conversion of sinners, and for the relief of the poor souls in purgatory


‘O Holy Father, may the torrents of love flowing from the sacred wounds of Thy Divine Son bring forth priests like unto the beloved disciple John who stood at the foot of the Cross; priests: who as a pledge of Thine own most tender love will lovingly give Thy Divine Son to the souls of men.

May Thy priests be faithful guardians of Thy Church, as John was of Mary, whom he received into his house. Taught by this loving Mother who suffered so much on Calvary, may they display a mother’s care and thoughtfulness towards Thy children. May they teach souls to enter into close union with Thee through Mary who, as the Gate of Heaven, is specially the guardian of the treasures of Thy Divine Heart.


Give us priests who are on fire, and who are true children of Mary, priests who will give Jesus to souls with the same tenderness and care with which Mary carried the Little Child of Bethlehem.

Mother of sorrows and of love, out of compassion for Thy beloved Son, open in our hearts deep wells of love, so that we may console Him and give Him a generation of priests formed in thy school and having all the tender thoughtfulness of thine own spotless love.’ [St Therese]

Belated Birthday Wishes 2 - 1st June - Deborah Scalise Ukok

A barrel-load of prayers and good intentions to
one of our best catholic bloggers ; especially considering the way she can raise our spirits when life has thrown more than a fair share of adversity at both her and her family.



Anyway as she's invariably spreading the love around ; I thought I'd do her meme, especially when e-mails ask the questions and I ignore them - will bite the bullet and say an act of humility.








What time is your alarm clock set to? Well Jay has the alarm clock as I sleep through alarms [I could sleep through the march on Stalingrad !] and he wakes me at around 5.30 a.m. I have to ensure I maintain a sleep pattern in order to rise; this week I was up all night on two separate occasions with Rowan and then Jonathan being violently sick and unable to reach the bathrom in time - after six hours scrubbing the stairs and hallway have never been cleaner or more sterile !! [groan!] No matter what time I awake I'm invariably late for work anyway. I'm late for everything.

What is the first thing you notice about the opposite sex? It's never one thing : Working in a shop I have to deal with many female customers and you have to quickly deduce all manner of things from their demeanour and speech intonation - and consequently how to act [with humour, empathy or apologetically -sometimes conspiratorially] . If the question is about what attracts me, it's hair, eyes and voice.

Do you think people talk about you behind your back? What's it Oscar Wilde says ? The only thing worse than people talking about you is their not talking about you. I think people do - I'm a disappointment to many, am never the most reliable, and have a predilection to rub people up the wrong way; together with having a vast array of faults and deficiencies I have to guess they do. Although I've been lucky enough never to overhear it - I have little confidence and I think I would scar me for life. I can cope with the obvious fact that people do; but couldn't really cope with the reality of it.

What movie do you know every line to? Well my memory's failing but I could have a good crack at huge chunks of : Spartacus, Some Like it Hot, Sons of the Desert, Carry on Screaming/Spying , Random Harvest , Operation Crossbow, Orphee, The Ninth Gate, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, My Fair Lady and The Sound of Music plus a few foreign ones. Embarassingly I can sing the Disney 'Hunchback of Notre Dame' from start to finish [It was Jonathan's favourite film for years !]

What is your favorite movie? Three Colours: Red [my mate Dean thinks I say this because I'm pretentious - but it really is my favourite - even if I regulate my watching of it in order not to spoil it . I watch Nightwatch and Hero regularly

Is anyone in love with you? Pass. Can we ever be sure ? Whatever the answer I know I don't deserve it. I am told I am loved and hope it's the case.

Do you eat breakfast daily? A Grande-Tasse of Coffee every morning, two coffees mid-morning, coffee, vitamin pills and maybe cereal or a cheese sandwich early afternoon after work - I don't really eat [maybe a cooked meal twice a week -and that's forcing myself]


Do you sleep on your side, stomach or back? On my side in the foetal position.

Who was the last person to make you mad ? Well do you count the half-dozen who have already enraged me on radio 4's today programme or people I interact with ? If it's the latter it has to be work colleagues : Not the lazy ones [I can cope with that] ; it's the uncaring and thoughtless ones. Even though I'm a rampant leftie virtually anyone from new labour makes my blood boil ; and Tony Blair and his entourage of reprobates makes me rend my shirt even more than Thatcher ever could.

Are you a lover or a fighter? Both -all the time ! Is it ever possible to be one and not the other ?

Are you a morning or evening person? Neither: I'm a night person.

Are you a cuddler? Ask anyone - I'm always the first to hug. I think it's the only aspect of my children's lives I've personally nurtured.

Are you a perfectionist? Well I'm an enigma anyway: In some things I will be a hyper-perfectionist to the point of obsession ; in others I'm either more laissez-faire or full of good intentions but incapability prevents its fulfillment.

Have you ever written a poem? Yes : stupid comic things at school ; narcissistic sesquipedalian tomes later on, silly rhymes for the kids. Must have written dozens over the years but now thankfully they have either been consigned to the flames or the landfill.


Do you have more guy or girl friends? Um , I don't really have any friends - work associates, yes; people from the distant past with whom I keep in contact ; but regular hang-around friends ? Sorry, just not a very social person.



How many tickets have you gotten? Um - Gotten ? Are we back at the peasants' revolt ? Sorry just hate americanese like buoy [boo-wee] , acclimate and debark. None: Can't drive - Nicky's never received a ticket though.



Piercings? Had my ear pierced for a few months when I was nineteen ; but having a father who thinks having a ponytail is akin to being found in bed with the milkman I let it heal over when I returned home.



Do you have a tattoo? No ; but have worn fake chinese/ethnic and henna tattoos all over in many designs for years.



Are you patient? Depends: I tend to be of extremes in this regard. I have no qualms waiting for hours in a queue or for someone else - but when the broadband is slow I want to put my fist through the monitor.



Do you miss anyone right now? I miss everyone - kids when they're at school, Nicky when she's at work, family, people I haven't seen in decades [even those who hate my guts] I really miss my friend in Japan; but I don't like to think about it as some people were really close friends and then moved away and forgot me. It happens ! What's more frustrating is when people 'mis-remember' or deliberately choose to forget past relationships - it's the way it goes. One person in particular thinks I'm some sort of satan-spawn and I have no idea why - it's sad.



Tea or coffee? Coffee: too much coffee.



Regularly burn incense? Yes; but always the fresh citrus/alpine type or ylang-ylang/patchouli . Hate the spicy/musky ones and the chocolate/coffee ones are just awful



Ever been in love? Never been out of it [for my sins]



Best room for a fireplace? Would like an open fire in every room [except maybe the toilet]



What do you do when you’re sad or upset? Resort to legal stimulants, read my favourite books , re-enact it out in the mirror , visit the cemetery and talk it out with relations, clean the house or sort out the bookshelves. Spend a long time doing logic puzzles



Afraid of heights? Terrified ; except when I'm climbing .



Can you change the oil in your car? I don't even know how to open the bonnet or boot - I can just about fill it with petrol



Favorite flower? Don't know what they're called ; think the name begins with an A ; but they've really dark green and white petals.


Favorite hangout? Home [playing boardgames with the kids] or Coffee shop [reading something academic] or reading novels under any available tree



Middle name[s]? Ivan James Christopher Harkins



Most romantic sounding language? Ayrshire accent: French language



Ever been overseas? Lived in Ireland, travelled round Northern Europe with school , Lived in USA

Belated Birthday Wishes: 1 G K Chesterton

Last Thursday, 29th May was Gilbert's 134th birthday - Our country's last 'Defender of the Faith' ; the greatest writer in english of the 20th century ; probably one of this country's greatest thinkers - ever !

{I chose this as I felt it was pretty relevant regarding tonight's 'Apprentice' [fingers crossed Lucinda gets through] together with my only claims to fame being the plagiarising of the 'last man standing' and 'martyr' fallacies from his writings}

The Fallacy of Success

There has appeared in our time a particular class of books and articles which I sincerely and solemnly think may be called the silliest ever known among men. They are much more wild than the wildest romances of chivalry and much more dull than the dullest religious tract. Moreover, the romances of chivalry were at least about chivalry; the religious tracts are about religion. But these things are about nothing; they are about what is called Success. On every bookstall, in every magazine, you may find works telling people how to succeed. They are books showing men how to succeed in everything; they are written by men who cannot even succeed in writing books.


To begin with, of course, there is no such thing as Success. Or, if you like to put it so, there is nothing that is not successful. That a thing is successful merely means that it is; a millionaire is successful in being a millionaire and a donkey in being a donkey. Any live man has succeeded in living; any dead man may have succeeded in committing suicide. But, passing over the bad logic and bad philosophy in the phrase, we may take it, as these writers do, in the ordinary sense of success in obtaining money or worldly position. These writers profess to tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his trade or speculation—how, if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; how, if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. They profess to show him how, if he is a grocer, he may become a sporting yachtsman; how, if he is a tenth-rate journalist, he may become a peer; and how, if he is a German Jew, he may become an Anglo-Saxon. This is a definite and business-like proposal, and I really think that the people who buy these books (if any people do buy them) have a moral, if not a legal, right to ask for their money back. Nobody would dare to publish a book about electricity which literally told one nothing about electricity; no one would dare to publish an article on botany which showed that the writer did not know which end of a plant grew in the earth. Yet our modern world is full of books about Success and successful people which literally contain no kind of idea, and scarcely any kind of verbal sense.

It is perfectly obvious that in any decent occupation (such as bricklaying or writing books) there are only two ways (in any special sense) of succeeding. One is by doing very good work, the other is by cheating. Both are much too simple to require any literary explanation. If you are in for the high jump, either jump higher than any one else, or manage somehow to pretend that you have done so. If you want to succeed at whist, either be a good whist-player, or play with marked cards. You may want a book about jumping; you may want a book about whist; you may want a book about cheating at whist. But you cannot want a book about Success. Especially you cannot want a book about Success such as those which you can now find scattered by the hundred about the book-market. You may want to jump or to play cards; but you do not want to read wandering statements to the effect that jumping is jumping, or that games are won by winners. If these writers, for instance, said anything about success in jumping it would be something like this: "The jumper must have a clear aim before him. He must desire definitely to jump higher than the other men who are in for the same competition. He must let no feeble feelings of mercy (sneaked from the sickening Little Englanders and Pro-Boers) prevent him from trying to do his best. He must remember that a competition in jumping is distinctly competitive, and that, as Darwin has gloriously demonstrated, THE WEAKEST GO TO THE WALL."


That is the kind of thing the book would say, and very useful it would be, no doubt, if read out in a low and tense voice to a young man just about to take the high jump. Or suppose that in the course of his intellectual rambles the philosopher of Success dropped upon our other case, that of playing cards, his bracing advice would run—"In playing cards it is very necessary to avoid the mistake (commonly made by maudlin humanitarians and Free Traders) of permitting your opponent to win the game. You must have grit and snap and go in to win. The days of idealism and superstition are over. We live in a time of science and hard common sense, and it has now been definitely proved that in any game where two are playing IF ONE DOES NOT WIN THE OTHER WILL." It is all very stirring, of course; but I confess that if I were playing cards I would rather have some decent little book which told me the rules of the game. Beyond the rules of the game it is all a question either of talent or dishonesty; and I will undertake to provide either one or the other—which, it is not for me to say.

Turning over a popular magazine, I find a queer and amusing example. There is an article called "The Instinct that Makes People Rich." It is decorated in front with a formidable portrait of Lord Rothschild. There are many definite methods, honest and dishonest, which make people rich; the only "instinct" I know of which does it is that instinct which theological Christianity crudely describes as "the sin of avarice." That, however, is beside the present point. I wish to quote the following exquisite paragraphs as a piece of typical advice as to how to succeed. It is so practical; it leaves so little doubt about what should be our next step—

"The name of Vanderbilt is synonymous with wealth gained by modern enterprise. 'Cornelius,' the founder of the family, was the first of the great American magnates of commerce. He started as the son of a poor farmer; he ended as a millionaire twenty times over.

"He had the money-making instinct. He seized his opportunities, the opportunities that were given by the application of the steam-engine to ocean traffic, and by the birth of railway locomotion in the wealthy but undeveloped United States of America, and consequently he amassed an immense fortune.

"Now it is, of course, obvious that we cannot all follow exactly in the footsteps of this great railway monarch. The precise opportunities that fell to him do not occur to us. Circumstances have changed. But, although this is so, still, in our own sphere and in our own circumstances, we can follow his general methods; we can seize those opportunities that are given us, and give ourselves a very fair chance of attaining riches."

In such strange utterances we see quite clearly what is really at the bottom of all these articles and books. It is not mere business; it is not even mere cynicism. It is mysticism; the horrible mysticism of money. The writer of that passage did not really have the remotest notion of how Vanderbilt made his money, or of how anybody else is to make his. He does, indeed, conclude his remarks by advocating some scheme; but it has nothing in the world to do with Vanderbilt. He merely wished to prostrate himself before the mystery of a millionaire. For when we really worship anything, we love not only its clearness but its obscurity. We exult in its very invisibility. Thus, for instance, when a man is in love with a woman he takes special pleasure in the fact that a woman is unreasonable. Thus, again, the very pious poet, celebrating his Creator, takes pleasure in saying that God moves in a mysterious way. Now, the writer of the paragraph which I have quoted does not seem to have had anything to do with a god, and I should not think (judging by his extreme unpracticality) that he had ever been really in love with a woman. But the thing he does worship—Vanderbilt—he treats in exactly this mystical manner. He really revels in the fact his deity Vanderbilt is keeping a secret from him. And it fills his soul with a sort of transport of cunning, an ecstasy of priestcraft, that he should pretend to be telling to the multitude that terrible secret which he does not know.

Speaking about the instinct that makes people rich, the same writer remarks---

"In olden days its existence was fully understood. The Greeks enshrined it in the story of Midas, of the 'Golden Touch.' Here was a man who turned everything he laid his hands upon into gold. His life was a progress amidst riches. Out of everything that came in his way he created the precious metal. 'A foolish legend,' said the wiseacres of the Victorian age. 'A truth,' say we of to-day. We all know of such men. We are ever meeting or reading about such persons who turn everything they touch into gold. Success dogs their very footsteps. Their life's pathway leads unerringly upwards. They cannot fail."

Unfortunately, however, Midas could fail; he did. His path did not lead unerringly upward. He starved because whenever he touched a biscuit or a ham sandwich it turned to gold. That was the whole point of the story, though the writer has to suppress it delicately, writing so near to a portrait of Lord Rothschild. The old fables of mankind are, indeed, unfathomably wise; but we must not have them expurgated in the interests of Mr. Vanderbilt. We must not have King Midas represented as an example of success; he was a failure of an unusually painful kind. Also, he had the ears of an ass. Also (like most other prominent and wealthy persons) he endeavoured to conceal the fact. It was his barber (if I remember right) who had to be treated on a confidential footing with regard to this peculiarity; and his barber, instead of behaving like a go-ahead person of the Succeed-at-all-costs school and trying to blackmail King Midas, went away and whispered this splendid piece of society scandal to the reeds, who enjoyed it enormously. It is said that they also whispered it as the winds swayed them to and fro. I look reverently at the portrait of Lord Rothschild; I read reverently about the exploits of Mr. Vanderbilt. I know that I cannot turn everything I touch to gold; but then I also know that I have never tried, having a preference for other substances, such as grass, and good wine. I know that these people have certainly succeeded in something; that they have certainly overcome somebody; I know that they are kings in a sense that no men were ever kings before; that they create markets and bestride continents. Yet it always seems to me that there is some small domestic fact that they are hiding, and I have sometimes thought I heard upon the wind the laughter and whisper of the reeds.

At least, let us hope that we shall all live to see these absurd books about Success covered with a proper derision and neglect. They do not teach people to be successful, but they do teach people to be snobbish; they do spread a sort of evil poetry of worldliness. The Puritans are always denouncing books that inflame lust; what shall we say of books that inflame the viler passions of avarice and pride? A hundred years ago we had the ideal of the Industrious Apprentice; boys were told that by thrift and work they would all become Lord Mayors. This was fallacious, but it was manly, and had a minimum of moral truth. In our society, temperance will not help a poor man to enrich himself, but it may help him to respect himself. Good work will not make him a rich man, but good work may make him a good workman. The Industrious Apprentice rose by virtues few and narrow indeed, but still virtues. But what shall we say of the gospel preached to the new Industrious Apprentice; the Apprentice who rises not by his virtues, but avowedly by his vices?

The "Middle Wife" by an Anonymous 2nd grade teacher

I've been teaching now for about fifteen years.
I have two kids
myself, but the best birth story I know is the one I saw in my own
second grade classroom a few years back.

When I was a kid, I loved show-and-tell. So I always have a few
sessions with my students. It helps them get over shyness and usually,
show-and-tell is pretty tame. Kids bring in pet turtles, model
airplanes, pictures of fish they catch, stuff like that. And I never,
ever place any boundaries or
limitations on them. If they want to lug it in to school and talk
about it, they're welcome.

Well, one day this little girl, Erica, a very bright, very outgoing
kid, takes her turn and waddles up to the front of the class with a
pillow stuffed under her sweater.

She holds up a snapshot of an infant. "This is Luke, my baby brother,
and I'm going to tell you about his birthday."

"First, Mom and Dad made him as a symbol of their love, and then Dad
put a seed in my Mom's stomach, and Luke grew in there. He ate for
nine months through an umbrella cord."

She's standing there with her hands on the pillow, and I'm trying not
to laugh and wishing I had my camcorder with me. The kids are watching
her in amazement.

"Then, about two Saturdays ago, my Mom starts saying and going, 'Oh,
Oh, Oh, Oh!' Erica puts a hand behind her back and groans. "She walked
around the house for, like an hour, 'Oh, oh, oh!' (Now this kid is
doing a hysterical duck walk and groaning.)

"My Dad called the middle wife. She delivers babies, but she doesn't
have a sign on the car like the Domino's man. They got my Mom to lie
down in bed like this." (Then Erica lies down with her back against
the wall.)

"And then, pop! My Mom had this bag of water she kept in there in case
he got thirsty, and it just blew up and spilled all over the bed, like
psshhheew!" (This kid has her legs spread with her little hands miming
water flowing away. It was too much!)

"Then the middle wives starts saying 'push, push,' and 'breathe,
breathe.' They started counting, but never even got past ten. Then,
all of a sudden, out comes my brother. He was covered in yucky stuff
that they all said it was from Mom's play-centre, (placenta) so there
must be a lot of toys inside there."

Then Erica stood up, took a big theatrical bow and returned to her
seat. I'm sure I applauded the loudest. Ever since then, when it's
show-and-tell day, I bring my camcorder, just in case another "Middle
Wife" comes along.

Now you have two choices...laugh and close this page or pass this
along to someone else to spread the laughs. I know what I did!!!

Live every day as if it is your LAST chance to make someone happy!

'Rumours' from Rome

Although I never read the vile rag ; Fr Mildew informs us that [wait for it , have to get my crucifix and Holy water and garlic before I type the name] The Tablet [shudder! Now I really need a shower] and its 'rumour-monger from Rome' ; the screaming diva Bobbie Mickens; is suggesting George Bush may consider becoming a catholic !!!

Stopped laughing yet ?

Well miracles do happen !

And there's more chance of George Bush becoming a catholic than Mr Mickens !!!!

New Catholic Truth Society Website

Haven't looked at it yet; but thought I'd better help spread the word. [h/t Oliver Hayes]

http://www.cts-online.org.uk/

More heat than light...

{Never knowing when to shut up, I jump headfirst into a little discussion amongst a few smug mutual back-patters on the Holy Smoke blog regarding the varying considerations of the child in the womb - the usual 'it's a blob for the first few months; and can be treated accordingly' bilge. There was also a snide aside regarding our 'gnosticism' regarding when ensoulment occurs. Unable to sleep [overtired - long story] : I started to type.}

I wish you'd stop presuming what catholics believe - we have absolutely no idea what a soul is except that it exists - we have no idea if there is a process called ensoulment at all [i.e. whether it is intrinsic to the material form by its being held in being by the Holy Spirit or if it is an external interaction] - we don't have to know in order to believe in its essential validity - the 'what' and 'how' we leave to Divine Mystery. I could still push you down the stairs without knowing Newton's laws of motion, I could slap you without knowing anything about quantum theory, electrostatics or neurons.

Ok here's my question :
Let's remove the whole 'human life in potential' argument from the equation and ask :

When in human development is it concretely valid to determine and classify the embryo/foetus as 'not a person' ?

Well you've probably all seen intra-uterine photos of 12 week old foetuses who look almost identical to sleeping infants - so I don't suppose any of you will use 'looking human' as a determinant;

what about intelligence ?
we already use that criterion to switch off the severely brain-damaged's ventilators ; and if the vital organs function we'll dehydrate them and starve them [it's a mercy isn't it ? nobody would wish to live like that would they ? anyway it's all perfectly legal since Jamie Bland] The same goes with abortion of the brain-damged foetus [a blessing - beter off not to be born and suffer]
yes, Intelligence seems an adequate determinant for 'personhood'.

well you might not like to know when we are at our most intelligent - the time when a human has the highest amount of active and interactive neurons and is at its optimum learning capacity with the highest IQ it will ever accrue - is seven months after conception !
You may be aware that before 22 weeks a foetus's brain has yet to develop folds in order to increase its mental capacity - what you may not be aware of is that even at this stage the foetus has the intelligence and learning ability of a seven year old child ! regress further week by week and you'll discover that a significant amount of foetal abortions happen to human beings of an intelligence quotient equivalent to ourselves and greater than any adult primate or cetacean [for whom we have so much sympathy] could ever achieve! we need to travel many many weeks further back to arrive at an 'insignificant' level of even human intelligence, let alone the animals we treat with 'human-like' sensibilities.

Do any of you remember that bitterly ironic day when the Liberal democrat party voted for the motion proposing abortion on demand and subsequently voted for the banning of the use of goldfish as fairground prizes on the grounds of cruelty ? who says evolution and civilization isn't a wonderful thing ?

Ok what about walking away from the brain thing and see what the biologists and geneticists say. How about working out the life-cycle of the human being and discerning how brief this embryonic development is in the totality of human development ? nine months versus three score years and ten - surely this will prove something.
Well ! If you remove the temporal length of stages one discovers that our life is more redolent of a mayfly than we'd believe. Out of the 41 stages in the human cell-life cycle we undergo 37 of them in the womb. If one accepts that past half-way is nearer the whole , technically the embryo is long past middle aged before its mother knows she's pregnant !

what about the foetus/embryo feeling pain ?
it's illegal to inflict pain on sentient animals; I kick a cat and I could end up in prison - some think it's barbaric to kill a spider and not humanely dispose of it in some other way.

Well the developing neural cortex attaches to the developing brain stem at 17 days after conception - the embryo certainly feels pain from that point - but is it aware of it ?

Maybe we should move onto sentience ?
there must be a time during human development where there is no self-awareness whatsoever - maybe embryology will give us an answer - then the abortion debate may become clearer - even if the embryo is undergoing a painful death surely not being aware of it or actually 'experiencing it' with self-awareness, cognition, memory etc might make it tenable to consider this as the killing of a non-person ?

Surely sentience and higher brain function, the ability to express oneself, portray emotion ,dream etc can't happen until well into pregnancy , maybe the last few weeks ? or even the last few months ? possibly it begins around or before the abortion limit of 24 weeks ? maybe slightly before but surely not earlier than say 18-20 weeks ?

Ooops !
it's impossible to determine when it actuates, but the mechanism for its functions cannot preclude its absolute absence; so we must be willing to face the possibility that it occurs at the beginning of the organ's development - when it goes online as it were:

Well guess what !
during the fourth week of development after conception the heart starts beating, blood starts to flow around the body to and from the yolk sac, buds start to turn into hands, the eyes are developing lenses....and
the brain divides into five separate vesicles : one of these is the telencephalon !
what's that ?
only the beginnings of the cerebral cortex [controlling memory, attention, perceptual awareness, thought, language, and consciousness]
and the basal ganglia [controlling motor control, cognition, emotions, and learning].

In other words it is impossible to determine if any of these functions have not commenced by this developmental stage. No matter how ill-formed or 'embryonic' - it is still present and potentially as active as every other aspect of the embryo.
Yes, less than a month !

and it gets even worse for the pro-choicer

In order for the brain vesicles and especially the telencephalon to form and function it requires morphological and molecular transient 'segments' known as neuromeres.

These neuromeres are already functioning in order to combine and differentiate and form a co-ordinate system.

These neuromeres - the spark of our whole psyche, awareness , intelligence, will - all that makes us a 'person'....

[wait for it]

...begin to develop on the 18th day after conception.

What am I saying ?
am I daring to make the ludicrous, preposterous suggestion that this lump of cells is self-aware, sentient and capable of the minutest form of cognitive function with a direct purpose and even a determined will towards actuating an end other than a simple form of chemical processes genetically engineered by its DNA ?

Well guess what ?
I'm going further and beyond this !

What's all this massive fascination with stem cells ?
why are they the new miracle on the block ?
why are they almost treated like some magical elixir that can solve all the world's medical ills ?

it's not so much what they do ; it's what they are !
they function beyond what we would seem credible to our common sense - to the point that we may feel compelled to call them miraculous or magical !

Go back a week or so and cut the cells which would form the embryo's head off above the forming notochord - well that which is destined to ultimately become a head - and flush it down the sluice !
then take the bunch of cells which are already developing into a proto-form of the lower body and place it where the head should have been.

what happens ?
a head develops - fully functioning brain etc - full kit and kaboodle.
In other words there's a self-directing entelechy within the organism itself external to the genetic code [whether it's controlled by nucleic acid concentrations pre-determined by the genetic code makes little difference - the self-directing motivation is now inherant within the organism]

this entelechy aims itself towards self-preservation and development to the point of self-repair and redirecting itself [changing legs into a head to replace a lost one - love to see Paul Daniels try that one!]

even if it's all basic biochemistry we're talking about an entity which from the very start is not developing into something which will eventually develop self-preserving , self-regulating and self-directing attributes - it already possesses them to the extent that within the first few weeks it's not the amorphous blob as insignificant as an amoeba , nor is it something many months away from brain function, self-awareness, cognition, emotion ; rather once it enters the foetal stage it's barely a month away from smiling, dreaming, mnetically reacting differently to varying sounds and sucking its thumb - all within twelve weeks - half the abortion limit !
Is it a person at twelve weeks ?
when wasn't it before this ?
want me to go through it all again ?
we simply cannot tell !!!!

there's no embryologist who can irrefutably claim that thought [no matter how primitive or merely motor-regulating] does not possibly commence as early as the 18th day after conception when those microscopic neuromeres emerge - and who knows what processes led to this and when they began ?

we're never dealing with a mere blob...

All this available information - and it doesn't alter catholic principles one iota; because we have fundamental moral principles that Life [however potential and requiring all manner of necessary things to become all it is designed to be] commences at conception ; because from that moment we can never know what wonders may be wrought within the womb and beyond in that entity's regard.

Have you been watching ?

My whole family's been hooked on this year's Apprentice.
We're utterly bemused by Sir Alan Sugar's discernment.
What is he playing at ?
Episode 1 - spoilt brat Alex; who claims all the ability and accolades but never takes any responsibility ; completely screws up a fish-selling task - by blaming the posh young toff for all his mistakes - the poor naiive deluded lawyer goes while Alex sails through the next 8 weeks.

Episode 2 - Confirmed just how deceitful and incompetent Jenny was - but who goes ? The only woman who took any responsibility for the Laundry task . Sir Alan you committed as severe error in judgment - Shazia could have made a great Apprentice.


Episode 3 - Ian [not the brightest or most capable] was tucked up completely by the most useless , arrogant and deluded candidate ever - Kevin ! did Kevin go - No , poor Ian went.

Episode 4 - Poor Simon was let down appallingly by his team - Alex and Jenny lied, Claire treated him like dirt ; but the wrong team won the task - Helene should have gone for the despicable way she treated Lucinda - A wrong firing again !

Episode 5 - Lindy went , but Claire's team was utterly inept and deserved to lose. Claire should have gone for being a terrible task leader and spending all her time drinking cider.

Episode 6 - At last - Kevin went !! Sir Alan made the first right decision of the series. Lee's treatment of Sara, Alex's tantrum - pair of them should have been thrown off the series - Raef and Lucinda came to Sara's defence - heroes !



Episode 7 - Phenomenal !! I would have sacked all 5 of them.



Episode 8 - They'd had it in for Sara for weeks [I'd have sacked Jenny, Lee and Alex for that fiasco back at the house where they bullied Sara because of Kevin's deserved firing] Both Michael and Helene should have gone.

Episode 9 - the biggest travesty of the series - wunderkind Raef - who'd won the tasks most of the weeks previously through his initiative [laundry, singles cards, top range wedding dresses, the best buy calf-skin etc] entered into the firing line and Sir Alan jumped at the opportunity. How Alex and Michael escaped again is beyond me - alex proved himself to be the most inane and talentless individual under the sun with that advert. Utterly unfair - Raef, like Shazia; could have easily won.

JUSTICE FOR RAEF !!!!

...so who's left ?

Out of them all the only credible candidate is Lucinda ; and it looks like tomorrow night she is doomed after being abandoned by Dumb and Dumber [Alex & Lee] she attempts to rent out a Zonda ; unaware that it's an Aston Martin - It looks like she's heading for the chopping block ! A great shame, but tomorrow night Nicky, the kids and I will be devastated if she goes !!!

Proud of My Kids...

I don't suppose many of you have read Anthony Burgess's 'Unearthly Powers' ?
Well the ending has an earth-shattering most bitterly ironic revelation that challenges us to our very core.
Catholicism has an intrinsic fundamental ethical stance : Let the universe perish around us ; But God's will be done !!!
Doing the right thing irrespective of the consequences, whatever the price...however detrimental it is to ourselves and perhaps those we love.


My children have been recently reading the 'Death Note' manga and watching the anime on the internet . When this finished they moved on to watching the excellent 'Monster'.
Individually they kept the big secret ethical dilemma surrounding the first few episodes from their siblings ; and I asked each one in turn : 'Did the Doctor do the right thing ?'

The three all replied that : 'Yes. He did the right thing !'
This made my heart leap - despite all the secular influences and my being a particularly bad catholic ; they still knew what was right...

Maybe you'd want to try yourself out with the same question ?
If you have 40 minutes or so to waste ; take a look - for a cartoon it's really quite good [Better than anything on ITV recently]!

Either follow the links on youtube for the next part ; or if you enjoy it the whole 71 episodes can be found at 66stage.com

More of my rants from 'Holy Smoke'

{We were in the middle of arguing on Holy Smoke Blog regarding the HFE bill - and a few had referred to common sense science [which they equivocated with natural law] as being the source of our morality. I felt compelled to warn them of the inherant dangers within this stance; in that when the science crumbles; so too does the ethical reliance upon it}

I'm not speaking as some amateur who's read a few websites - I was compelled to read and research extensively for my double-thesis for Ethics on when Life begins :
Be very , very careful what you mean when you say life begins at conception ; ensure that you have your philosophical and ontological grounding as the first principle - the unique essence in potential which if no direct external force is applied it is internally directed [even if incapable of actuating it] towards becoming a human being ;
that this is the only tenable point in time when one cannot equivocate away this internal directing force.

This may seem ridiculous but you'd be amazed at the way Pope John Paul II's teaching of 'ensoulment at conception' was diretly turned against him by biologists and ethicists :

a] Ever wondered why there is a 14 day limit on embryo experimentation ? You'd be stunned at the answer - and utterly astounded that Baroness Warnock was considered a great intellect at the time.
14 days is deemed the time when it can be determined visually if there is either one or more embryos [twinning or recombination].
Therefore as it cannot be shown that there is either one or more it is impossible to say that 'ensoulment' [or unique psycho-personal individuation] occurs before this time.
i.e. Because you cannot tell under a microscope whether it's a single embryo or twins + ; it's morally acceptable to experiment on them before this time - because if there is such a thing as ensoulment it must occur after this !!!
Insane ? Most assuredly - but that's the grounds for the law of this land !
But supposing some pro-choice person was to corner you with this hypothetical:
Identical Twins - a fertilised embryo splits in two, now was there one individual who became two replicas, or one individual who suddenly had an adjacent replica, or one individual who perished and became two new entities, or one individual divided between the two entities ? How do you apply individuality and ensoulment in this regard ? head spinning yet ?
This is what happens when you try and rely on tenuous scientific support without reasoning the principles through first.

b] There are problems with 'conception' per se in that it isn't as cut and dried as everyone presumes.
Beware of stating the 'presumed case' because others may fallaciously attempt to destroy your case by applying exigent facts which don't disprove the philosophical case but they do hack away at the groundwork when one unnecessarily over-relies on the science.

For a start regularly more than one sperm penetrates the ovum - and in order to ensure genome integrity all other genetic material must be expelled from the ovum - evolution has made provisions for this and ensured that the actual genetic integration between the sperm and ova to form a zygote occurs between 24 and 48 hours after sperm penetration.

Next you have to worry about the 'Germaine Greer fallacy' - that of the fact that we do not know why around 30% of all fertilised concepti do not implant and are ejected [ you'll hear a lot of pro-choicers double this figure ; but there are many decent research papers out there which confirm the c.1/3 figure] - assuredly some are genetically defective [blighted ova] and would never develop so are expelled as an expediency for further potential to conceive - but regarding a significant percentage of those 'spontaneously' expelled they do not appear to be defective - we have no idea why this 'natural abortion' occurs.
Consequently you have the quite offensive and specious corollary of Germaine Greer that according to catholic sentiments regarding conception a priest should be holding requiem masses for sanitary towels.

You'll also hear of pro-choicers speaking of hydatidiform moles and choriocarcinoma as a [fallacious] substantive proof that sperm and egg do not axiomatically mean life ; therefore one can do what one wishes with all fertilised ova.
Pro-choicers equivocate the 'necessary' condition of fertilisation as being invalid by its 'insufficiency' - which is as logical as saying dynamite isn't explosive because the fuse sometimes fizzles out.

Then there's the implantation fallacy - one that's even used by reprehensible liberal catholics to justify the use of iuds, the morning after pill and even the contraceptive pill itself.
the idea is one of the fertilised embryo 'interfacing' with the mother - implanting and transmitting signals for the production of hormones triggering subsequent development of the four [misnomered] 'foetal membranes' .
The seed not being a real seed unless it's in the soil.
The embryo not being alive until it's implanted.
Imagine this notion as the tree falling in the woods not making a noise if there's no-one to hear it - grossly ridiculous epistemology deriving its justification from bastardised enlightenment idealism - you'll see the same fallacious reasoning all over the place - something doesn't exist until it makes its presence known ! Aristotle is spinning in his grave.

c] The nucleic acid problem .

I've already mentioned when fertilised an embryo can split into twins,triplets etc and this allows arguments condemning the notion of ensoulment.
does each twin get half a soul, or does an extra soul pop up or descend from heaven ; and what happens to the second soul if recombination [a regular risk in IVF] occurs ? does one human being contain two souls or does the soul vanish ?

but lets go all frankenstein - supposing we separated the embryo up cell by cell at an early stage and implant this genome into irradiated ova - thus producing dozens of siblings - does the multicell embryo contain one soul per cell in order to ensure each of these new embryos is ensouled or do these souls pop into existence when the new embryo is formed - if so what happens to the original soul ?

yes, this is obscene speculation - but it's all grounded in that single comment of His Holiness of blessed memory...get my point ?

let's go to the ultimate proposition - every cell in one's body could potentially produce a clone - supposing in a nightmare future billions of clones were made from a single human - from where would their souls derive unless the soul was not inherant within each and every cell ?

utterly ridiclous of course - alien and anathema to all we were trying to morally and ontologically defend within the unique individual deriving from conception who must be afforded all the rights and dignity as an entity which is directed towards a fully fledged living human being and person external from the womb - and be deemed as essentially human life without exception ; irrespective of the accidental consequences occurring to it which may not allow this to be completed.

what is a soul ?
how are we ensouled ?
are we even ensouled or is the process even more spiritually and supernaturally mysterious ?

We don't know !
Therefore we must always as a moral categorical imperative err on presumptive caution that irrespective of any scientific or metaphysical speculation - the conceptus is axiomatically a unique aspect of creation to its fullest extent which includes being created in God's image to its fullest extent regarding its possession of a soul.

We must NEVER transgress this principle by conspiring with presumed corollaries or corroborating scientific evidence which seem to justify our ontological and moral principles - it's building a house on sand; and sadly this is what Pope John Paul II, in all innocence and wondrous faith in the divine; inadvertently became embroiled in; by allowing his statements regarding our faith to be analysed out of context as scientific phenomena.

Yet again all I'm saying is beware
Rely on our fundamental moral principles and construct one's arguments accordingly - not on presumed scientific phenomena which seem to vindicate it.

{ A few responded [another e-mailed me] , implying I was speaking detrimentally of Pope John Paul II , who was highly educated with two doctorates yet never claimed to be an expert [they presumed I was claiming I was, although I never even implied it] on the issue so took advice from the experts - one in paticular referred to anyone wishing to know more on the subject should consult the Linacre.org site . This led to my response :}


...I made no reference to evangelium vitae or questioned its moral integrity or its potential contrariety with scientific evidence ; nor did I anywhere make any counterclaims regarding ensoulment or the validity of Pope John Paul II's statement.
I was referring to those who cling to these 'soundbites' and infer a great deal more to the point of hyperbolic construction of a principle grounded upon it - it's how every ideology begins.

I would never claim this was His Holiness' rationale; but I know there are a great deal of people out there who presume certain things grounded in these presumed 'factoids' and formulate their ethical stances accordingly - and the moment science appears to compromise or jeapordise that morality 'built on sand' it collapses. The moment we stopped arguing on our terms and attempted to take the fight to them on their ground - we were sunk.


Spend a decade arguing with pro-choice 'christians' who ground their morality on obfuscatory pro-choice propaganda built from mendacious embryological "old wives' tales" and you'll see where I'm coming from.

I didn't claim to be an expert on the subject ; but I am highly experienced in the argumentation on the subject - I have only a meaningless pseudo-honorary doctorate in logic ; but did spend nine years studying and researching life ethics at third level education - intimating I was blowing my own trumpet or fallaciously appealing to authority was below the belt.

I didn't go on an all-out assault on the warnock report because it would take weeks of typing just to scratch the surface of the travesty - I merely referred to one of its most outrageously irrational conclusions.

Nor would I refer anyone to the Linacre site as a primary resource for ethical instruction - because it isn't ! It's there to inform and relay principles and the arguments which flow from them - were the uninformed to refer to the articles without recourse to a fundamental catholic moral theological instruction regarding our basic moral principles - confusion would arise ; especially when contrary hypotheticals or opinions of past Church fathers and saints are made without qualification [because a reader's awareness of the catholic position is regularly presumed by the author].

If you think I'm being specious please allow me to take one example from Helen Watt's article on pre-implantation diagnosis.
Within it she assumes [I contend she presumes] [for argument's sake] that the entity before twinning is destroyed completely and the twins formed are entirely new entities.
Understand so far ? whether one agrees or not or simply has no idea isn't that important [however metaphysically earth-shattering]; but that which follows IS important:

"If, on the other hand, the conceptus does not have developmental potential in any environment, then it is not a human embryo, and not a human being."

She then proceeds further along this line of development 'as act' as being of axiomatic mandatory import.

Notice the far from subtle danger in all this ?
Consider the phenomena of spontaneous abortion of the apparently non-defective embryo ? Or for that matter the defective.

Extrapolate this to congenital or developmental defects within the embryo or foetus which make its viability impossible - travel farther along this line of argument and consider anencephalic foetuses .

Is Ms Watts implying that only that which develops or maintains the potential to develop is solely human ?
[Notice the affinity with the seed/soil corollary I mentioned earlier ?]

It would appear so ; and if she was it would be utterly contrary to catholic moral teaching [inherant since the Didache, but absolute since Pius IX] regarding the embryo from conception ; irrespective of its implantation or its spontaneous abortion - it possesses a full share of human dignity and authenticity in what von Balthasar and Benedict XVI refer to as 'a democracy of essence'.

But more than likely this statement was a mere oversight , never intended to be considered on its own ; but as an exigent aside to the main thrust of the argument relating to the dignity of pre-implantation embryos by clinicians.

Inadvertently in attempting to argue one case , she takes a little less care in qualifying her side-points and lets slip through an argument which if taken out of context could destroy everything she is attempting to argue.
Normatively this wouldn't matter one jot ; because the informed reader would immediately overlook the potential unintended consequences and see it solely in the light for which it was intended.

But let's supposing someone slightly less informed of the catholic principles were to read the article ?
and they had suffered miscarriages of embryos who through an internal fault would never reach full term ; or bore an anencephalic foetus ; and then read that comment ?
They would presume Ms Watts was saying their child was never a human being !
Or suppose a secular biologist directly seeking ethical loopholes to dismiss or destroy catholic principles as contradictory, irrational, fallacious or contrary to scientific evidence - caught sight of this sentence ?
Imagine what a Dawkins or Robert Winston would do with this nugget ?


Are we so presumptuous to conclude that 'blighted ova' which would never develop into embryos past the zygote or blastocyst stage aren't fully fledged souls in Heaven when we have no idea what's in the mind of God or His providential will ?
We must always err on the side of caution [as Ms Watts wondrously concludes elsewhere] ; and maintain that prime moral principle of Human Life from conception as a categorical imperative ; we dare not consider anything else without the potential of contravening God's will.

Do you now see what I'm saying ?
I'm not talking about the ethics of an issue ; I'm talking about how to argue from our Ethical standpoint; not inadvertently ,as Chesterton puts it, 'thinking backwards'.
The late, great Fr Robert Noonan [OFM [cap]] declared that regarding catholic morality - "lest ye become like little children" is the most crucial of scriptural considerations.
Sure we must be as cunning as serpents and exercise the graces of our intellect and wisdom to their fullest extent ; but the principles intrinsically bear an innocence ,and adamantine simplicity of Truth [devoid of gnostic mystagoguery and obfuscatory complexity] Truth - the Person of Christ.

Human Life is Sacred - a gift from God.
Human Lovemaking is a gift from God in which we share in God's life and love [it invokes inseparable unitive and procreative aspects].
Human life begins at conception.

Three principles : with due concern to Original Sin tell me a single ethical argument pertaining to life and sexuality to which these cannot be applied; and in doing so manifest the totality of the catholic position.
Simple in context: Profound beyond our human consideration in discernment and deliberation - Divine Mystery.
Apply these fundamental principles and we have the promises of Christ given to Holy Mother Church that we cannot err.

When we attempt to argue outside this remit in any other way using any other grounds we are prone to failure ; and have our own arguments turned against us.

{Of course this led to arguments that I automatically alienate atheist pro-lifers by including God in the Catholic Fundamental Moral theological principles for Life and Human Sexuality}

You misunderstand the point of first principles.
You presume they must be the lowest common denominator, the most watered-down which the greater amount can agree upon.
You expect us to remove God from the equation ; this would axiomatically introduce a hidden agenda on our part; and a diminution of the principle; others may agree with the inviolability of human life from conception to grave [or somehwere in-between] ; but their reasoning could be grounded on all manner of reasons and beliefs which may either have a remote affinity or a contrariety with our position.
Natural law is a consequence and support for our theodicy ; not a criterion for it.

{he claimed he didn't misunderstand ; and that it was quite obvious I was on a hiding to nothing and participating in a 'dialogue of the deaf' by making God a mandatory element [I didn't] for a pro-Life position }

But you are misunderstanding !
...and to be frank , you're also being quite specious: Why should extra principles alienate and exclude those with similar sentiments and principles who have no theistic grounds for them ? My enemy's enemy dude.
You also refuse to acknowledge what I said in regard to first principles : excision from them does not make them simpler [e.g. 'even if there were no God our existential authentic human identity includes respect for every living individual; refusing to use them as a means to an end and considering their life inviolable'] - reductionism is not retrogressive re-grounding or simplification - that's known as Ockham's fallacy.
Your 'solely' misunderstands the holistic dissemination nature of intrinsic consequential predication - the A-B-C synthesis may preclude A-B for some; but not necessarily B-C ; or even the A--C for others.

{Of course it didn't do any good - there are those among us who think having God in the equation axiomatically invalidates the integrity or congruency of the argument. Consequently in order for them to 'get on board' we have to throw out our underlying principles . All too sad.}

Cardinal Kasper tells anglicans to get off the fence and decide who they are....Here's my response.

{Taken from my comments on Holy Smoke Blog }

I'm sorry but choice regarding belief is a modern fallacy: One either believes or one does not - the belief may alter after grace/revelation/discernment ; but choosing ? The option is neither tenable nor ontologically coherent.

When women were 'ordained' in the church of England His Holiness of blessed memory John Paul II allowed all and sundry of their flock into the fold of Holy Mother Church ; with not enough concern regarding their beliefs - we need only refer to the 'convert' clergy who remained most definitely anglican - whether it be of the preening camp doyly wearing High Church who think Catholicism is part neo-Jacobite 'grand tour', part E.M. Forster ; all wrapped up in the trimmings of Merrie Englande's Pugin, Morris and Inspector Morse ! ;
...or the liberal slap-dash misogynistic cafeteria-types who think that Rome is merely a 'flavour' of the same thing ; with excess dogmatic exigents one can excise from believing at whim.

I loved Cardinal Kasper's writing style in his evangelical pop-theology books ; they're perfect as an introduction for the discerning layperson or even seminarian; but one has to admit he most definitely went off the rails in his comments on the salvation of Jews for maintaining their 'covenant' [without] accepting Christ [ yes I know, he didn't say that but he allowed too many to interpret his words that way] ; and here His Eminence makes the same categorical error - asking people to choose what they believe - and these days who the hell knows what anglicans believe ? No two are the same ; belief in God seems to be an optional extra for some of them !

Sure let anglicans become a congruent entity ; let those who find Rome unacceptable state it and stop in the pretence of calling themselves catholic when they deny everything it stands for; let those who , for all manner of ludicrous reasons , believe everything Holy Mother Church teaches but have not yet crossed the Tiber, return to the fold.

But it would be a grievous scandal for those who did not believe [think the Blair incident here] proclaiming one thing before God and his neighbour while believing quite the contrary within.

There's one thing we seem to be reticent to approach -the anglican's reception into the catholic communion and thus being reunited with their baptismal vows:
How many truly with integrity, sincerity and authenticity ; affirmed in accordance with the doctrine of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church ; that what they previously belonged to was neither Christian nor a Church ; but merely a man-made , misguided , sacrilegious, heretical cult ???

{after a few posts someone said they disagreed with me ; and that any sincere conversion was beneficial to Holy Mother Church...}

I'm sorry but where is this disagreement ?
I'm a catholic who wishes everyone to convert - that's part of my Baptismal responsibility !
But we've enough half-baked catholics [little more than enthusiastic pagans] within the Church already and if we have an influx of anglican 'clerics' who feel they should axiomatically be ordained as catholic deacons/priests - a severe problem arises when their priestly/clerical training revolves round a few weeks of courses and interviews at a local seminary or religious institute because they already have a divinity degree !

Certainly we have had wonderful converts ;although many would disagree with me , in my eyes the most profound conversion in England was Chesterton's - not Newman's : The saintly Newman was a romanized anglican of the tradition Aidan Nicholls lauds and wishes to promote as a new English renaissance; whereas Chesterton was so Catholic he made us Catholics more Catholic within.
Some of the best catholics are converts ; but so too are some of the most hyper-maniacal pietistic ones who ; and sadly there are more than a few converts who seek to belong to every clique, inner ring and committee with an to make their local brand of 'catholicism' shape their own image and vision.

Some think SSPX is too modernist and anyone who doesn't wear at least four hair shirts and 17 scapulars and pray hourly to the blessed Juanita Chiquita Rosita Bonita Gomez for all those poor souls sent to purgatory for wearing skirts above the ankle ; are little less than satanists !
Whereas others think that 'real' catholicism is lentil tofu casseroles, saving the planet by only flushing solids, spending hours boring everyone recounting their personal life journey in the spirit and holding someone's hand while sitting on a beanbag and listening to the latest yogic chant based on the speeces of nelson mandela.

Conversion brings out the fervour in people; but if there isn't the necessary humility or understanding behind the professed faith, it can easily develop into a fascistic ideology of either extreme - the Torquemada or the Timothy Leary.

So sure, come one, come all - but for crying out loud will the Church of England and Wales get off their backsides and reform catholic instruction beyond the reprehensible and scandalous RCIA programmes .
Sure we want catholics - but ones who know what they're 'signing up for' would help us all....

Well what did we expect ?

Yes I'm back....

Maybe I'll refer to the past few weeks as I go on ; but in the meantime last week was a devastating blow upon the nation and humanity as a whole.
The HFE act had nothing Human about it, it had little to do with fertility and when it came to embryology it defied all evidence and reason and opened the floodgates for the furtherance in the systemic genocide....
It merely confirmed a few things we'd always known - the liberal intelligentsia have now decreed a father is surplus to requirement [my children's school has already banned the use of 'mum and dad' when teachers speak to pupils] , that multiple siblings can be produced in a lab and only the one most suitable to provide spare body parts for their sick brother or sister will be implanted ; the rest are sluiced away; and that it is perfectly 'un-frankenstein-like' to create thousands of diseased human embryos within irradiated animal eggs in order to analyse, dissect and destroy in the name of a research system which has not provided any beneficial results whatsoever.

It also re-assured us that our suspicions were not paranoic when we presumed that the pro-choicers were intent on universal abortion on demand up to birth and beyond with virtually no concern to the sensibilities of the foetus [did you see Dawn Primarolo screaming on TV that pro-lifers were evil and promoting vile untrue propaganda] - It confirmed that the argument for viability was the mendacious sham we always knew it to be ; that David Steel was always a duplicitous bastard who always denied he was seeking abortion on demand but forty years after the event after millions have perished it just doesn't seem enough to him; no, already thousands use abortion as a form of late 'contraception' oblivious to the consequences ; as if they were going for a legwax.

I'm sick of hearing about the choice being a tough decision - a crisis of conscience where different demands are tugging different ways ; and the mother's psyche is left fraught ; and society is aiming to reduce the amount of abortions by making life more financially and socially secure for women - it's a lie !
Yes there are many women who deeply regret killing their children and suffer terribly in the aftermath; these women in silence [ignored by everyone ] regret being pressurized or cornered or bullied or being ignored by professionals when expressing reticence in going through with the termination.

But society is turning abortion into such an 'irrelevance' that many thousands of women are not affected in any way ; one 'renowned' agony aunt is notorious for referring to abortion's health and beauty benefits for the young woman - problems with combination skin and acne ? get pregnant for a few weeks!!!

We catholics have a tendency to overuse the adjective 'satanic' - but how else can we categorise this ?

We're going to soon face up to the facts - the majority of people are oblivious to what happens when women enter an abortion clinic and that's the way society wants it .

Mandatory counselling - which is technically a legal requisite of the 1967 and 1990 acts; but has been ignored by every politician and medical practitioner - was proposed by a pro-choice MP last week - it was trounced !
And as for post-abortion counselling for those who require it ?
Well the feminista ideology decrees that these women who suffer depression or deep anxiety at any loss post-abortion are 'letting down the sisterhood' ! So most political commentators deny its existence and claim it's merely pro-Life propaganda.

Already we have pro-Life medical practitioners having to inform their patients and display posters in their clinics ; together with pharmacists they face disciplinary procedures if they refuse to refer patients demanding abortifacients or abortions....

Imagine how the politicians would twist it into some alleged 'misogynistic bullying' if they offered abortion counselling ? Evan Harris [Dr Death] wants every 'Life' and spuc or Winning clinic to be legally forced to give advice and information as to where and how to procure an abortion. A bit like making it compulsory for alcoholic anonymous to have a two-drink minimum bar before every meeting .

So it's left to pro-Life groups to pick up the pieces for these women's shattered lives wih counselling and support - for as long as they are legally able - Harris will get his way sooner than later...

Now I'm really quite angry at the way the pro-Life groups campaigned during all this ; but this is neither the time nor place to criticize them and their compromises or naiive trust in their own capabilities or the efficacy of their mini-campaigns. One cannot say they did not work hard ; but the price is too high for these small pressure groups to remain as such - we desperately require a national universal movement for Life run by professionals with political and media acumen.

As for the Bishop's conference ? his Eminence ? Eccleston square ? The tablet ? The national Justice and Peace groups ?
A few nice speeches, the odd pastoral letter...the rest was silence !
I think chocolate teapot would be an offensive allusion ; shameful irresponsible negligent reprobates would be an understatement.
...and when Cardinal Cormac gave his speech and said how 'disappointed' he was - please forgive me but I wanted to kick his backside all the way to beachy head [but not back]
the only MP who made any concrete reference to both her personal beliefs and her faith regarding the issues wasn't a catholic but rather a member of the DUP !!!!

In the meantime one thing is absolutely ludicrous - Claire Curtis Thomas MP is deputy chair of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life group ; yet she is quoted by the BBC in believing in a mother's right to choose !!!!! It's a bit like having Herod or Medea run a creche !

What planet are we on ?
Three times every two seconds ; Christ is re-crucified in the womb .
46 million lives a year -LOST - not including all those millions chemically aborted or prevented from implanting by pills, patches and iuds.
Catholics of centuries past would have taken to the streets ! Mobs would have adopted civic disobedience and a refusal to conform or participate in a government which conspired in this genocide.

These days we are so much more civilised ; we have coffee mornings and little talks from enthusiastic amateurs and car window stickers and after a few prayers we decide to write stern letters to our MPs
then we can compartmentalise it to a little night prayer and indignant outrage when a pro-choicer is on the radio or TV.

We're all so quick to promote the corporal works of mercy ;
but I sometimes wonder if we're not really 'sincere' self- deluded goats who think if we pretend and say we're sheep long enough it will be true if we hide from the truth in the shadows of ignorance.... [Mtt 25]

Mercifully we have some Bishops willing to make their voices heard [albeit AFTER the event - but would that Cardinal Cormac had said something remotely akin to the words of Bishop O'Donoghue yesterday :

A Statement from Patrick O’Donoghue, Catholic Bishop of Lancaster, on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Listening to the second reading and debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the House of Commons, I was saddened beyond measure. It has been said that the House of Commons is at its best when debating issues of conscience, but do I detect here a growing intolerance to listening to religious or ethical considerations? Again and again the justification given to experimenting on embryonic human beings or killing the unborn was an appeal to ‘science’ or ‘scientific research’ as if it were the only source of objective, rational knowledge. It seems that millennia of ethical and religious thought are lightly dismissed as subjective and discredited.

In contrast to the language of utilitarianism in the parliamentary debate that sought to justify the exploitation of the unborn for our economic and medical gain there arises in my heart the words of Scripture that speak prophetically of the dignity of the unborn child:

‘You created my inmost self,
Knit me together in my mother’s womb.
For so many marvels I thank you;
A wonder am I, and all your works are wonders.
...Your eyes could see my embryo.’ (Psalm 139:13-14, 16).

Every embryonic human person is a wonder of creation, who possesses the inherent right to realise his or her potential for creativity, love, self-sacrifice, and joy. However, our society has so cheapened and violated human life that it does not hear or understand the language of wonder about the unborn.

A dangerous myth appears to be growing that the only knowledge that can inform policy- making is scientific research. Discourse and reason are impoverished when science is used to exclude other branches of knowledge, such as reasoning based on natural law.



Not only this, but we witnessed a flawed, selective approach to science, with the House choosing to ignore the hard scientific evidence provided by adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, that proves that unethical research on embryonic human persons is unnecessary.



What we saw last week in the House of Commons was the misuse of science to justify the continued exploitation and disposal of society’s most vulnerable members – embryonic and foetal human persons.



As I understand it, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support those who promote the benefits of creating human-animal hybrids. What we witnessed in the vote allowing the creation of human-animal hybrids was a partisan act of faith that experimentation on embryos will at some distant time result in cures for Alzheimer’s, MS and other diseases.



We all hope and pray that medical science will find cures for these diseases that cause such dreadful suffering, but not at the cost of de-personalising the unborn and treating them as things to be manipulated and dissected. Compassion cannot result in the exploitation and destruction of unborn human persons. It is also a misuse of science to employ medical judgements concerning the ‘viability’ of the unborn child’s development as the only consideration that grants the most fundamental of human rights – the right to life.



It’s farcical to think that the definition of a human person depends on being able to exist on one’s own. Human life is a series of inter-related dependencies at all stages of our existence. The State has no moral right to exclude the most vulnerable stage of dependency from the legal protection granted to human life. Any State that accepts the arbitrary use of power over others is immoral. As I see it, last week’s vote in the House of Commons perpetuated the immoral use of power over the unborn.



How can it be reasonable that a 12 week old foetus is treated as an unborn child or disposed of as a thing depending on the choice of the mother? Being a person is not something granted by the choice of another, but is an inherent right dependent on the fact of existence. From the moment of conception, the unborn human being is genetically unique from his or her mother and father. The unborn child is a completely new and different living being.



The Catholic Church truly cares for the well-being of women, particularly those agonising over the decision whether to continue with a pregnancy or to have an abortion. I can only imagine that the trauma of rape or the anxiety of a mother unable to cope can feel unbearable. However, I have been told that the grief and distress that many women suffer following an abortion is also unbearable. Confronted with this suffering, we must all do more to support the work of Pro-Life groups that offer counselling and practical support to women who are considering abortion or are struggling to cope after an abortion.



In its strong stand against abortion or experimentation on embryonic human persons, the Church is not saying all who have an abortion or all those who voted for this legislation are evil. But it is the Church’s duty to constantly remind society that the act of intentionally killing the unborn embryo or child is always of itself evil.



I would like to personally thank all those Members of Parliament who tabled amendments and voted in defence of unborn human life. I call on all people of faith – Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Christian – who believe in the sanctity of unborn human life to join with the Catholic Church in redoubling their efforts in the continuing campaign for a change in these laws.
During the 19th century, slavers said black people weren’t human. They were wrong. During the 20th century, the Nazis said Jews weren’t human. They were wrong. Since 1967, the House of Commons has said the unborn are not human. They, too, are wrong.



+Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster Sunday, 25 May, 2008

Sorry All

...Life has been somewhat turbulent recently - and I have had neither the time, energy, enthusiasm or inclination to post anything ; even if I have spent the odd few minutes elsewhere, maybe commenting on a blog post; and invariably when I did it was somewhat belligerently if I was irked or disagreed with a viewpoint.
I apologise to all the regular visitors; and hope that normal service will be resumed as soon as possible ; but please bear with me - it may seem ridiculously petty but attempting to get finances to renovate the house, work turmoil , family illnesses and ultimately our car being stolen last weekend ; have left us completely drained and ravaged. I feel pretty guilty that so much upheaval and stress can be caused by such irrelevancies ; but there we go - I'm shallow !
Anyway will probably start blogging with earnest tomorrow...

Cardinal Keith O' Brien on The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

He's done well, but he sometimes [inadvertently] didn't fight on Natural law grounds; and rather he resorted to challenging scientists and ethicists - not a good idea - these pragmatic relativist sophists can easily agree that black is white because it isn't sky-blue-pink !!

Michael Voris on Purgatory

Tough talking - Not for the squeamish.

King Francis ?

Gordon Brown's suggesting the repeal of the 1701 Act of Succession barring Catholics [and those married to catholics] from the line of succession.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it also require consultation with the sixteen Commonwealth realms before Parliament can do anything ? The Telegraph is suggesting this would make the direct descendant of Charles I ; 74 year-old Duke Franz Herzog von Bayern of Bavaria the rightful Monarch.

Not going to happen in a million years of course...but what of other claimants to the throne ; barred for all manner of reasons ?

Now the first really spurious claims are from 1066 when Saxon Edgar Aetheling was pronounced king instead of William the Conqueror. There was a massive hunt for his descendants last year , and one could surmse that it is tenable that across the globe a direct descendant exists ; but this was all really resolved when Saxon and Norman lines were united in the person of Henry II , grandson of Henry I and his wife Matilda, daughter of Queen Margaret of Scotland who was the daughter of Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside, who was the son of Aethelred the Unready and elder brother of Edward the Confessor.

Next comes the claim that Edward Earl of March was not the legitimate son of Richard , 3rd Duke of York ; and even if he was, his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was bigamous. In either case the succession fell to his brother George, Duke of Clarence [yes the Malmsey wine guy]

Edward III of England
Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III
Philippa Plantagenet, 5th Countess of Ulster, only child of Lionel
Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March, first son of Philippa
Anne de Mortimer, first daughter, third line of Roger
Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, only son of Anne
George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, third son (second "legitimate" son) of Richard
Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury, second daughter, fourth line of George
Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu, first son of Margaret
Catherine Hastings, first daughter, second line of Henry
George Hastings, 4th Earl of Huntingdon, second son of Catherine
Francis Hastings, only son of George
Henry Hastings, 5th Earl of Huntingdon, only son of Francis
Ferdinando Hastings, 6th Earl of Huntingdon, oldest son of Henry
Theophilus Hastings, 7th Earl of Huntingdon, only son of Ferdinando
Theophilus Hastings, 9th Earl of Huntingdon, second son of Theophilus
Elizabeth Rawdon, 16th Baroness Botreaux, only daughter, second line of Theophilus, 9th Earl
Francis Rawdon-Hastings, 1st Marquess of Hastings, first son of Elizabeth
George Rawdon-Hastings, 2nd Marquess of Hastings, eldest legitimate son of Francis
Edith Rawdon-Hastings, 10th Countess of Loudoun, first daughter, third line of George
Paulyn Francis Cuthbert Rawdon-Hastings, second son of Edith
Edith Maud Abney-Hastings, 12th Countess of Loudoun, first daughter, third line of Paulyn
Barbara Abney-Hastings, 13th Countess of Loudoun, first daughter, second line of Edith
Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, eldest son of Barbara

Note: This list excludes females from the crown. The precedent for female inheritance of the Crown would not have been set had George, Duke of Clarence inherited the crown. The principle that a woman could reign was only laid down by Henry VIII when he named Mary I as heir to the throne in 1525, and approved by Parliament by the First Succession Act which appointed Elizabeth I as heir. This line does, however, maintain the precedent of the right of a male to inherit via female line set by the succession of Henry II after he reclaimed the usurped crown from his cousin Stephen.

Now James I only had a claim to the throne via his descendency from Henry VII via his daughter [James's great-Grandmother [paternal and maternal] ] Margaret Tudor - but the Henry VIII's Third act of succession decreed the line of succession had to pass Margaret's younger sister Mary.

Had Elizabeth I upheld this and not decreed James I [VI] her successor; our present Queen would be Lady Caroline Ogilvy.

Ok I know...

I said I can't do memes as I don't know enough bloggers to tag them....
But I got an e-mail asking me to participate.

7 Non-Important things/habits/quirks about yourself:

a] I hate food - I seldom eat a cooked meal and live on caffeine and the odd cheese sandwich with a few vitamin pills to compensate. Practically starving in seminary and subsequently cooking for Nicky and the kids over the years has given me an aversion to food and a total loss of appetite.

b] I'm a perfect specimen/guinea pig for the psychologists : Technically a genius with an IQ of 186 and a rare Myers-Briggs INFJ 'counsellor' class ; according to them I should be a renowned empathic academic. I'm most definitely not - I stack shelves !!! To the clinical psychologist I'm a fascinating enigma and they've spent dozens of hours assessing me - this usually results in their concluding I'm a frustrating quandary/anomaly - my last analyst retorted that I was better at his job than he was and that he [jokingly] wasn't sure whether he wanted to marry me or strangle me ! I was voted both at Uni and work as the 'person you'd most want to be trapped in a lift with'. I was also voted 'rear of the year' but I won't go into that...but I'm the kind of person you're not afraid to tell your darkest secrets to - strangers on trains regularly feel they can start a conversation with me. I once had a whole lower deck of strangers on a London bus debating the pro's and con's of polygamy , as I disembarked I got a standing ovation ; and my fellow students were astounded as a bus of all ages sexes and races went off into the distance waving at us - it really was surreal beyond imagining - half socratic dialogue:half ealing comedy.

c] I was a crook ! When Rowan was born Jamie was barely one , Nicky was ill, so we had to move near Nicky's parents . As penniless students I had to sneak onto the 5.02 a.m. London train from Southend and swap trains about 4/5 times [to ones that never checked tickets past a specific station ] to get to Uni. When I got to Uni I had no money for anything so how was I to survive ? I already worked evenings but that barely paid for two sets of nappies and baby milk/food - Nicky was ill with post-natal depression - we were screwed - I would have gone on the game if I could have afforded the red lightbulb [ Joke!] - so my London flatmates and I devised a scam - a pub quiz scam ! We pretended to be a registered 'yuppy' company which sold printed pre-prepared random questions for pub quizzes - we would send free 'sample questions' to the local pubs and clubs with the literature saying 'if you like our free samples - why not buy our inexpensive set quiz packs ?'
Of course they'd never buy quizzes - but they would certainly use the free questions - they did - and who'd be there as a pubquiz team ? who knew all the answers ? and who would win the £50 prize money ? We'll either burn in hell or spend a few millennia in purgatory for it ; but I cannot believe we got away with it . We weren't like international jewel thieves or gangsters - but it did mean we weren't filling our pockets with sausages and bacon from the university cafeteria breakfast to eat in the evening , or picking the mould off the bread to make toast or living off cornflakes with water instead of milk for a few months...

d] I have a few more holes in my body than most people - a triangle sawn out of my jaw, a bolt hole through my shin, hole in my knee where my lower leg was sewn back on , two scarred puncture wounds in my hand - no I do not look like frankenstein's monster - I'm just accident-prone.

e] I was asked to be a labour intern with the future 'promise' of a safe labour parliamentary seat.
One too many overhead projector presentations in Transport House on the 'clintonization of british politics and the formation of New Labour' ; together with the death of John Smith and the idiotic election of that [expletive deleted] Blair ; had me running for the hills.

f] I have got to be one of the worst time-keeper's on the planet - I'm either late for everything or arrive hours [on occasion days] early for things ; My memory is utterly ridiculous -say a string of twenty numbers and I'll remember them , ask me to immediately repeat even a short sentence verbatim and I'll completely recompose it ; I can remember the 'gist' of conversations from thirty years ago , but ask me to repeat a sentence from five minutes ago and I'll have restructured it into a completely differently worded encounter - I'll remember the exact reasoning and logic in it down to the minutest subtle nuance - but the words used ? Never !
My mind spends a lot of the time trying to work out how and why I know the things I know or make the decisions I've already made. All too often I'll know the answer to something but have no idea how I know it , or why I have made a reasoned judgment call on making a decision - but done it so quickly I have to go back and reflect on how I made the decision after it's been made ;my mind's on broadband , but my memory is definitely old modem dial-up. The right answer will come out of my mouth sometimes five minutes before I can explain why I know it's the right answer. It's pretty scary sometimes.

g] I'm an Austrian Count ; My Father's a Scottish Laird. Does it mean I have money ? Well for the past week I've had less than eighty pence in my pocket - and that went on coffee at work.

Coincidence ???

Every time the Grand National rears its ugly head all five of us place our pound bets:


Jonathan went for Turko as it reminded him of a character from one of his favourite comedy programmes 'Scrubs'.


Nicky and Jamie independently picked the same horse : D'argent [spooky - maybe a good omen ?]


Then somewhat eerily and defiant of the probability experts ; Rowan and I proceeded to do exactly the same thing - We chose to bet on the same horse - Comply or Die - The Winner !!!
The Rule is any winnings are spent enjoyably; but recklessly....


Rowan's getting the hilarious cartoon series'Home Movies' season 1 with her £9 winnings...


...and I'm buying an L plushy - what's a plushy ? A soft toy model .

L is the young master detective [Think Columbo/Porfiry/Sherlock but barefoot with a penchant for ultra-sweet tea and patisserie] from the gloriously over the top japanese supernatural thriller anime series "Deathnote" - If you haven't heard about it yet ; it's heading for these shores soon and it's going to be big.

Blood on our hands....

Yet again members of the House of Lords have concluded that the Catholic Church is responsible for the deaths due to h.i.v/A.I.D.S in the developing world . Same old business, same old lies....

Is there anything under Heaven that we are not being blamed for ?

It's even more ludicrous and bitterly ironic that we're the only people who're saying if you have a disease you shouldn't do anything to risk infection with another - especially the ones you purport to love...

You do know that centuries of the Tridentine Mass will be soon blamed for global warming ? All that incense dissolving the ozone layer !!

Anyway for more on how evil we are check: http://williamonthehill.typepad.co.uk/my_weblog/2008/04/catholic-church.html

Social Reform vs. Birth Control by GKC

The real history of the world is full of the queerest cases of notions that have turned clean head-over-heels and completely contradicted themselves. The last example is an extraordinary notion that what is called Birth Control is a social reform that goes along with other social reforms favoured by progressive people.

It is rather like saying that cutting off King Charles' head was one of the most elegant of the Cavalier fashions in hair-dressing. It is like saying that decapitation is an advance on dentistry. It may or may not be right to cut off the King's head; it may or may not be right to cut off your own head when you have the toothache. But anybody ought to be able to see that if we once simplify things by head cutting we can do without hair-cutting; that it will be needless to practise dentistry on the dead or philanthropy on the unborn--or the unbegotten. So it is not a provision for our descendants to say that the destruction of our descendants will render it unnecessary to provide them with anything. It may be that it is only destruction in the sense of negation; and it may be that few of our descendants may be allowed to survive. But it is obvious that the negation is a piece of mere pessimism, opposing itself to the more optimistic notion that something can be done for the whole family of man. Nor is it surprising to anybody who can think, to discover that this is exactly what really happened.

The story began with Godwin, the friend of Shelley, and the founder of so many of the social hopes that are called revolutionary. Whatever we think of his theory in detail, he certainly filled the more generous youth of his time with that thirst for social justice and equality which is the inspiration of Socialism and other ideals. What is even more gratifying, he filled the wealthy old men of his time with pressing and enduring terror, and about three-quarters of the talk of Tories and Whigs of that time consists of sophistries and excuses invented to patch up a corrupt compromise of oligarchy against the appeal to fraternity and fundamental humanity made by men like Godwin and Shelley.

Malthus: An answer to Godwin

The old oligarchs would use any tool against the new democrats; and one day it was their dismal good luck to get hold of a tool called Malthus. Malthus wrote avowedly and admittedly an answer to Godwin. His whole dreary book was only intended to be an answer to Godwin. Whereas Godwin was trying to show that humanity might be made happier and more humane, Malthus was trying to show that humanity could never by any possibility be made happier or more humane. The argument he used was this: that if the starving man were made tolerably free or fairly prosperous, he would marry and have a number of children, and there would not be food for all. The inference was, evidently, that he must be left to starve. The point about the increase of children he fortified by a fantastically mathematical formula about geometrical progression, which any living human being can dearly see is inapplicable to any living thing. Nothing depending on the human will can proceed by geometrical progression, and population certainly does not proceed by anything of the sort.

But the point is here, that Malthus meant his argument as an argument against all social reform. He never thought of using it as anything else, except an argument against all social reform. Nobody else ever thought in those more logical days of using it as anything but an argument against social reform. Malthus even used it as an argument against the ancient habit of human charity. He warned people against any generosity in the giving of alms. His theory was always thrown as cold water on any proposal to give the poor man property or a better status. Such is the noble story of the birth of Birth Control.

The only difference is this: that the old capitalists were more sincere and more scientific, while the modem capitalists are more hypocritical and more hazy. The rich man of l850 used it in theory for the oppression of the poor. The rich man of 1927 will only use it in practice for the oppression of the poor. Being incapable of theory, being indeed incapable of thought, he can only deal in two things: what he calls practicality and what I call sentimentality. Not being so much of a man as Malthus, he cannot bear to be a pessimist, so he becomes a sentimentalist. He mixes up this old plain brutal idea (that the poor must be forbidden to breed) with a lot of slipshod and sickly social ideals and promises which are flatly incompatible with it. But he is after all a practical man, and he will be quite as brutal as his forbears when it comes to practice. And the practical upshot of the whole thing is plain enough. If he can prevent his servants from having families, he need not support those families Why the devil should he?

A Simple Test

If anybody doubts that this is the very simple motive, let him test it by the very simple statements made by the various Birth-Controllers like the Dean of St. Paul's. They never do say that we suffer from a too bountiful supply of bankers or that cosmopolitan financiers must not have such large families. They do not say that the fashionable throng at Ascot wants thinning, or that it is desirable to decimate the people dining at the Ritz or the Savoy. Though, Lord knows, if ever a thing human could look like a sub-human jungle, with tropical flowers and very poisonous weeds, it is the rich crowd that assembles in a modern Americanized hotel.

But the Birth-Controllers have not the smallest desire to control that jungle. It is much too dangerous a jungle to touch. It contains tigers. They never do talk about a danger from the comfortable classes, even from a more respectable section of the comfortable classes. The Gloomy Dean is not gloomy about there being too many Dukes; and naturally not about there being too many Deans. He is not primarily annoyed with a politician for having a whole population of poor relations, though places and public salaries have to be found for all the relations. Political Economy means that everybody except politicians must be economical.

The Birth-Controller does not bother about all these things, for the perfectly simple reason that it is not such people that he wants to control. What he wants to control is the populace, and he practically says so. He always insists that a workman has no right to have so many children, or that a slum is perilous because it is producing so many children. The question he dreads is "Why has not the workman a better wage? Why has not the slum family a better house?" His way of escaping from it is to suggest, not a larger house but a smaller family. The landlord or the employer says in his hearty and handsome fashion: "You really cannot expect me to deprive myself of my money. But I will make a sacrifice, I will deprive myself of your children."

One of a Class


Meanwhile, as the Malthusian attack on democratic hopes slowly stiffened and strengthened all the reactionary resistance to reform in this country, other forces were already in the field. I may remark in passing that Malthus, and his sophistry against all social reform, did not stand alone. It was one of a whole class of scientific excuses invented by the rich as reasons for denying justice to the poor, especially when the old superstitious glamour about kings and nobles had faded in the nineteenth century. One was talking about the Iron Laws of Political Economy, and pretending that somebody had proved somewhere, with figures on a slate, that injustice is incurable. Another was a mass of brutal nonsense about Darwinism and a struggle for life, in which the devil must catch the hindmost. As a fact it was struggle for wealth, in which the devil generally catches the foremost. They all had the character of an attempt to twist the new tool of science to make it a weapon for the old tyranny of money.

But these forces, though powerful in a diseased industrial plutocracy. were not the only forces even in the nineteenth century. Towards the end of that century, especially on the Continent, there was another movement going on, notably among Christian Socialists and those called Catholic Democrats and others. There is no space to describe it here; its interest lies in being the exact reversal of the order of argument used by the Malthusian and the Birth-Controller. This movement was not content with the test of what is called a Living Wage. It insisted specially on what it preferred to call a Family Wage. In other words, it maintained that no wage is just or adequate unless it does envisage and cover the man, not only considered as an individual, but as the father of a normal and reasonably numerous family. This sort of movement is the true contrary of Birth Control and both will probably grow until they come into some tremendous controversial collision. It amuses me to reflect on that big coming battle, and to remember that the more my opponents practise Birth Control, the fewer there will be of them to fight us on that day.

The Conflict

What I cannot get my opponents in this matter to see, in the strange mental confusion that covers the question, is the perfectly simple fact that these two claims, whatever else they are, are contrary claims. At the very beginning of the whole discussion stands the elementary fact that limiting families is a reason for lowering wages and not a reason for raising them. You may like the limitation for other reasons, as you may dislike it for other reasons. You may drag the discussion off to entirely different questions, such as, whether wives in normal homes are slaves. You may compromise out of consideration for the employer or for some other reason, and meet him half-way by taking half a loaf or having half a family. But the claims are in principle opposite. It is the whole truth in that theory of the class war about which the newspapers talk such nonsense. The full claim of the poor would be to have what they considered a full-sized family. If you cut this down to suit wages you make a concession to fit the capitalist conditions. The practical application I shall mention in a moment; I am talking now about the primary logical contradiction. If the two methods can be carried out, they can be carried out so as to contradict and exclude each other. One has no need of the other; one can dispense with or destroy the other. If you can make the wage larger, there is no need to make the family smaller. If you can make the family small, there is no need to make the wage larger. Anyone may judge which the ruling capitalist will probably prefer to do. But if he does one, he need not do the other.

There is of course a great deal more to be said. I have dealt with only one feature of Birth Control--its exceedingly unpleasant origin. I said it was purely capitalist and reactionary; I venture to say I have proved it was entirely capitalist and reactionary. But there are many other aspects of this evil thing. It is unclean in the light of the instincts; it is unnatural in relation to the affections; it is part of a general attempt to run the populace on a routine of quack medicine and smelly science; it is mixed up with a muddled idea that women are free when they serve their employers but slaves when they help their husbands; it is ignorant of the very existence of real households where prudence comes by free-will and agreement. It has all those aspects, and many of them would be extraordinarily interesting to discuss. But in order not to occupy too much space, I will take as a text nothing more than the title.

A Piece of Humbug

The very name of "Birth Control" is a piece of pure humbug. It is one of those blatant euphemisms used in the headlines of the Trust Press. It is like "Tariff Reform." It is like "Free Labour." It is meant to mean nothing, that it may mean anything, and especially some thing totally different from what it says. Everybody believes in birth control, and nearly everybody has exercised some control over the conditions of birth. People do not get married as somnambulists or have children in their sleep. But throughout numberless ages and nations, the normal and real birth control is called self control. If anybody says it cannot is possibly work, I say it does. In many classes, in many countries where these quack nostrums are unknown, populations of free men have remained within reasonable limits by sound traditions of thrift and responsibility. In so far as there is a local evil of excess, it comes with all other evils from the squalor and despair of our decaying industrialism. But the thing the capitalist newspapers call birth control is not control at all. It is the idea that people should be, in one respect, completely and utterly uncontrolled, so long as they can evade everything in the function that is positive and creative, and intelligent and worthy of a free man. It is a name given to a succession of different expedients, (the one that was used last is always described as having been dreadfully dangerous) by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself.

The nearest and most respectable parallel would be that of the Roman epicure, who took emetics at intervals all day so that he might eat five or six luxurious dinners daily. Now any man's common sense, unclouded by newspaper science and long words, will tell him at once that an operation like that of the epicures is likely in the long run even to be bad for his digestion and pretty certain to be bad for his character. Men left to themselves gave sense enough to know when a habit obviously savours of perversion and peril. And if it were the fashion in fashionable circles to call the Roman expedient by the name of "Diet Control," and to talk about it in a lofty fashion as merely "the improvement of life and the service of life" (as if it meant no more than the mastery of man over his meals), we should take the liberty of calling it cant and saying that it had no relation to the reality in debate.

The Mistake


The fact is, I think, that I am in revolt against the conditions of industrial capitalism and the advocates of Birth Control are in revolt against the conditions of human life. What their spokesmen can possibly mean by saying that I wage a "class war against mothers" must remain a matter of speculation. If they mean that I do the unpardonable wrong to mothers of thinking they will wish to continue to be mothers, even in a society of greater economic justice and civic equality, then I think they are perfectly right. I doubt whether mothers could escape from motherhood into Socialism. But the advocates of Birth Control seem to want some of them to escape from it into capitalism. They seem to express a sympathy with those who prefer "the right to earn outside the home" or (in other words) the right to be a wage-slave and work under the orders of a total stranger because he happens to be a richer man. By what conceivable contortions of twisted thought this ever came to be considered a freer condition than that of companionship with the man she has herself freely accepted, I never could for the life of me make out. The only sense I can make of it is that the proletarian work, though obviously more senile and subordinate than the parental, is so far safer and more irresponsible because it is not parental. I can easily believe that there are some people who do prefer working in a factory to working in a family; for there are always some people who prefer slavery to freedom, and who especially prefer being governed to governing someone else. But I think their quarrel with motherhood is not like mine, a quarrel with inhuman conditions, but simply a quarrel with life. Given an attempt to escape from the nature of things, and I can well believe that it might lead at last to something like "the nursery school for our children staffed by other mothers and single women of expert training."

I will add nothing to that ghastly picture, beyond speculating pleasantly about the world in which women cannot manage their own children but can manage each other's. But I think it indicates an abyss between natural and unnatural arrangements which would have to be bridged before we approached what is supposed to be the subject of discussion.

You simply have to watch this....

Cardinal Arinze: Vatican stalwart par excellence [Malachi Martin even had him as one of the two potential popes to save the world at the end of one of his novels]
One of my minor claims to fame is that he once commented about the length of my hair and suggested I should lose it. maybe if the comments had been made to my face I might have been cheeky enough to say if a pony tail was good enough for Our Lord, then...? [ref the Turin shroud]

Anyway I know the final part of this interview is on Fr Ray Blake's blog ; but it is just sooooooooo cool it should be listened to from the start : Here's pt one , just follow the links for the rest AND why not try out the little theology of the body piece by the same youtube posters [lovely family with the cutest kid]

I don't know how he sleeps at night....

The Blair has spoken :
http://www.rcdow.org.uk/lectures/

Just how many abject heresies, heterodoxies, apostasies, relativisms, pragmatisms etc he resorted to [I won't say lowered himself to] during his Westminster lecture I will leave the rest of you to deduce.

It's very hard to love one's neighbour when they come in the colour of our beloved ex-PM. Basically it's a "let's all agree to disagree but have a group hug anyway"
To him faith is a great thing - of course it doesn't matter if it's true or not - and if we try to live according to our beliefs it must never ruffle anyone's feathers or impinge on anyone else's rights. The speech [of course] repulsed and sickened me - I expected nothing else from the blessed 'Tone' ; whom I have already stated on many occasions on this site wouldn't know what catholicism was if it bit him on the bum : besides which, I'm waiting for a confirmation that his repentance of sins at his reception into the Church included his Anti-Life conspiracy and his mendacious warmongering.


...From s.p.u.c. president John Smeaton's 11th January letter to Tony Blair


The Catholic Church teaches that “In the case of an intrinsically
unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is…never licit to obey it,
or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or to vote for it’”.
(Evangelium Vitae, 73)
We would therefore be most grateful if, in the light of your reception into the Catholic
church, you would tell us if you now repudiate:

-voting in 1990 for abortion up to birth three times during Parliamentary debates on what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990;
-personally endorsing your government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent;
-your government introducing legislation which has led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients;
-your government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right.
-personally championing destructive experiments on human embryos.

Charlton Heston R.I.P [1923-2008]

Dark Night of the Soul....

Upon a darkened night
the flame of love was burning in my breast
And by a lantern bright
I fled my house while all in quiet rest

Shrouded by the night
and by the secret stair I quickly fled
The veil concealed my eyes
while all within lay quiet as the dead


Chorus
Oh night thou was my guide
oh night more loving than the rising sun
Oh night that joined the lover
to the beloved one
transforming each of them into the other


Upon that misty night
in secrecy, beyond such mortal sight
Without a guide or light
than that which burned so deeply in my heart


That fire t'was led me on
and shone more bright than of the midday sun
To where he waited still
it was a place where no one else could come


Chorus

Within my pounding heart
which kept itself entirely for him
He fell into his sleep
beneath the cedars all my love I gave
And by the fortress walls
the wind would brush his hair against his brow
And with its smoothest hand
caressed my every sense it would allow


Chorus

I lost myself to him
and laid my face upon my lovers breast
And care and grief grew dim
as in the mornings mist became the light
There they dimmed amongst the lilies fair
There they dimmed amongst the lilies fair
There they dimmed amongst the lilies fair

"Dark Night of the Soul," like much of St John of the Cross's poetry, is based on "Song of Songs" from the Biblical Old Testament, and also on much of the romantic poetry and lyrics of Spanish popular balladry of that time, i.e., 16th century. The "secret stair" has less to do with a staircase in a monastery, and more to do with the popular theme of lovers meeting for a late night romantic tryst. In order for this to be possible, the young maiden of the song or poem would have to sneak out of the house, by the "secret stair."


St John uses this as a metaphor for the soul in prayer who, by means of contemplation, steals away from the world unnoticed, to meet in loving relationship with God. The dark night refers to the soul's search for God, beyond the confines of the human definitions we have put upon God.

Fulton Sheen on 'Compassion : The True and False varieties'

A repost...[feels relevant]

The Rabbit on the Moon

In our day and age children no longer believe in rabbits on the moon. But all Japanese know the charming legend and still see in the shadows on the full moon a rabbit threshing his rice. I believe that other countries see a woman reading or the man in the moon.

All these legends show us that our ancestors looked for meaning in the universe. Here is the Japanese legend:

Once upon a time long ago, a monkey, a rabbit, and a fox lived together as friends.

During the day they frolicked on the mountain; at night they went back to the forest.

This went on for some years.

The Lord of Heaven heard about it and wanted to see if it were really true.

He went to them disguised as an old wanderer.

"I have traveled through mountains and valleys and I am tired out. Could you give me something to eat?" said he, laying down his staff in order to rest.

The monkey went off at once to gather nuts that he presented; the fox brought an offering from his fish trap in the river.

The rabbit ran through the fields in every direction but came back with nothing.

The monkey and the fox made fun of him: "You are really good for nothing."

The little rabbit was so discouraged that he asked the monkey to gather some thistles and the fox to set fire to them.

They did so.

Then the little rabbit said to the old man,

"Please eat me," and threw himself into the flames.

The pilgrim was pierced to the heart by this sacrifice, and wept, saying,

"Each one deserves praise; there are neither winners nor losers. But the little rabbit has given an exceptional proof of love."

So saying, he restored the rabbit to his original form and took the little body to heaven to be buried in the palace of the moon.

The utter poverty of the little rabbit is like that of the child who said, "Pardon me, God, I have nothing to offer." Both exemplify the attitude from which true prayer arises.

Whatever I offer God is really nothing in God's eyes: "Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (Jas 1:17).

For every wild animal of the forest is mine,

the cattle on a thousand hills....

If I were hungry, I would not tell you,

for the world and all that is in it are mine. (Ps 50:10, 12)

The worthy offering is a sacrifice of thanksgiving, an appeal to God in the midst of suffering: "Then you will delight in right sacrifices" (Ps 51:19). The greatest thing we can offer or do is never more than a stone thrown high in the air that ultimately falls to earth. The renown of famous people is the same: Their exploits may flash across the history of humanity, but they soon fade away without leaving a trace.


"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Mt 24:35). And what are these words that will live forever? "Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die" (Jn 11:25 26).

Who could dare to speak such words? Christ, the incarnate Word, who said to his Father, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me" (Heb 10:5).

This latter phrase is translated from the Greek of the Septuagint, but in Hebrew the psalm reads, "You have given me an open ear" (Ps 40:6). Christ, in taking flesh, like a slave whose earlobe is pierced, had as his food to do his Father's will and to accomplish his Father's works. "Then I said, See, God, I have come to do your will, O God,' as in the scroll of the book it is written of me" (Heb 10:7). "And it is by God's will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10).

This mystery of incarnation and of suffering is summed up in the "Amen" that concludes Christian prayer. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "was not Yes and No'; but in him it is always Yes'. 'For this reason it is through him that we say the Amen,' to the glory of God" (2 Cor 1:19 20).

There is, of course, a long way to go before we can apply the legend of the moon rabbit to Christ. Our ancestors in the Far East expressed in this tale their deep desire for authentic love such as was fully realized in Christ. Perhaps we may say that the Christ whom they did not know reveals himself here as living in all persons of good will, as Paul says to the Colossians:

"Your life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col 3:3).

The child who begs pardon for having nothing to offer, the rabbit who can give nothing but himself, share in a certain way in the movement of Christ who, in his poverty, had nothing but his body to offer in sacrifice. In truth all real prayer, if it is rooted in our nothingness, includes at the same time the fathomless riches of Christ.

[From a Carmelite Homily]

In your face Dawkins !!!

I suppose the Atheist would retort : "What of Pineapples and Artichokes ?"
My response would be "They're there as a punishment for unbelieving atheists who don't deserve a banana !"

Your prayers please....

I can't really go into details otherwise I would depress the lot of you ; but things are pretty tough at the moment on so many levels ; and your prayers would be appreciated.



Sometimes thoughtless or selfish "insignificances" which seem meaningless at the time can snowball into devastating events in the future for others which can tear families apart and cause them to lose everything.
What is virtually an irrelevant 'nothing' to one can mean 'everything' to someone else. A single act of spite or malice or an off-the-cuff vitriolic retort or simple act of ostensibly meaningless revenge can lead to the most terrible things.


In my experience it has never solely been the big catastrophes or acts of violence or mortal sins which have led to the 'disasters' in people's lives - it's invariably been the tiny almost unnoticeable 'hinge' in destiny - the karmic nexus - the split path where the selfish or reckless choice is made; and it brings with it the deluge; even if the person who makes the choice never knows it's happened and is oblivious to the future sufferings inflicted upon others....sometmes the most benign and inoffensive people can become instigators of chaos.

Sometimes success or failure can all depend on situations where it's "all for the want of a horse shoe nail"....





Of course it has led me to consider all manner of fantastic possibilities for those venial sins I've committed - and how possibly scarring and destructive they were upon others ; and I never knew or understood how thoughtlessly cruel I was , or what sequence of events I may have inadvertently actuated in the lives of others. God has shielded it from my eyes. I wonder how many people I have slighted without ever being aware , how many people hate me for things I have simply forgotten or neglected to even consider, how many have had to conquer themselves and their situation to find it in their heart to forgive me ; and here am I totally oblivious to the possibility that I could have harmed anyone ?

We see through a glass darkly.
Please God, let all our random acts be kind ones....for through them The Lord may work wonders....

Please God let us be wary of the little things...for we are truly unware of the consequences they might bring.

A Must Read!!!

Two Brilliant posts [Holy Orders and Radio 4 bias] from the Valle Pastor; together with a referral to a terrifying posting on the Zadok blog concerning Belgium's obscene extension of its diabolical euthanasia laws

http://valleadurni.blogspot.com/

Faith-Trip [Catholic Youth Social Networking for a "Global Parish"

Great resource mandated by the Australian Conference of Bishops

Facebook with a brain , a heart and a conscience.

So if your kids are spending too long on Neopets or World of Warcraft; push this!!

http://www.faithtrip.net/mem/faithtrip_mpage.asp

The Root of Things by GKC

Once upon a time a little boy lived in a garden in which he was permitted to pick the flowers but forbidden to pull them up by the roots. There was, however, one particular plant, insignificant, somewhat thorny, with a small, star-like flower, which he very much wanted to pull up by the roots. His tutors and guardians, who lived in the house with him, were worthy, formal people, and they gave him reasons why he should not pull it up. They were silly reasons as a rule. But none of the reasons against doing the thing were quite so silly as the little boy's reason for wanting to do it; for his reason was that Truth demanded that he should pull the thing up by the roots to see how it was growing.


Still it was a sleepy, thoughtless kind of house, and nobody gave him the real answer to his argument, which was that it would kill the plant, and that there is no more Truth about a dead plant than about a live one. So one dark night, when clouds sealed the moon like a secret too good or too bad to be told, the little boy came down the old creaking stairs of his farmhouse and crept into the garden in his nightgown. He told himself repeatedly that there was no more reason against his pulling this plant off the garden than against his knocking off a thistle top idly in a lane. Yet the darkness which he had chosen contradicted him, and also his own throbbing pulse, for he told himself continually that next morning he might be crucified as the blasphemer who had tom up the sacred tree.


Perhaps he might have been so crucified if he had so torn it up. I cannot say. But he did not tear it up; and it was not for want of trying. For when he laid hold of the little plant in the garden he tugged and tugged, and found the thing held as if clamped to the earth with iron. And when he strained himself a third time there came a frightful noise behind him, and either nerves or (which he would have denied) conscience made him leap back and stagger and stare around. The house he lived in was a mere bulk of blackness against a sky almost as black.

Yet after staring long he saw that the very outline had grown unfamiliar, for the great chimney of the kitchen had fallen crooked and calamitous. Desperately he gave another pull at the plant, and heard far off the roof of the stables fall in and the horses shriek and plunge. Then he ran into the house and rolled himself in the bedclothes.




















Next morning found the kitchen ruined, the day's food destroyed, two horses dead, and three broken loose and lost. But the boy still kept a furious curiosity, and a little while after, when a fog from the sea had hidden home and garden, he dragged again at the roots of the indestructible plant. He hung on to it like a boy on the rope of a tug of war, but it did not give. Only through the grey sea-fog came choking and panic-stricken cries; they cried that the King's castle had fallen, that the towers guarding the coast were gone; that half the great sea-city had split away and slid into the sea.
Then the boy was frightened for a little while, and said no more about the plant, but when he had come to a strong and careless manhood, and the destruction in the district had been slowly repaired, he said openly before the people, "Let us have done with the riddle of this irrational weed. In the name of Truth let us drag it up." And he gathered a great company of strong men, like an army to meet invaders, and they all laid hold of the little plant and they tugged night and day. And the Great Wall fell down in China for forty miles. And the Pyramids were split up into jagged stones. And the Eiffel Tower in Paris went over like a ninepin, killing half the Parisians; and the Statue of Liberty in New York harbour fell forward suddenly and smashed the American fleet; and St. Paul's Cathedral killed all the journalists in Fleetstreet, and Japan had a record series of earthquakes and then sank into the sea. Some have declared that these last two incidents were not calamities properly so called; but into that I will not enter. The point, was that when they had tugged for about twenty-four hours the strong men of that country had pulled down about half of the civilized world, but had not pulled up the plant. I will not weary the reader with the full facts of this realistic story, with how they used first elephants and then steam engines to tear up the flower, and how the only result was that the flower stuck fast, but that the moon began to be agitated and even the sun was a bit dicky. At last the human race interfered, as it always does at last, by means of a revolution. But long before that the boy, or man, who is the hero of this tale had thrown up the business, merely saying to his pastors and masters, "You gave me a number of elaborate and idle reasons why I should not pull up this shrub. Why did you not give me the two good reasons: first, that I can't; second, that I should damage everything else if I even tried it on?"


All those who have sought in the name of science to uproot religion seem to me very like the little boy in the garden. Skeptics do not succeed in pulling up the roots of Christianity; but they do succeed in pulling up the roots of every man's ordinary vine and fig tree, of every man's garden and every man's kitchen garden. Secularists have not succeeded in wrecking divine things; but Secularists have succeeded in wrecking secular things. A religion cannot be shown to be monstrous at the last; a religion is monstrous from the beginning. It announces itself as extraordinary. It offers itself as extravagant. The sceptics at the most can only ask us to reject our creed as something wild. And we have accepted it as something wild. So far one would think there would be a mere impasse, a block between us and those who cannot feel as we do. But then follows the curious practical experience which has ratified religion in our reason for ever. For the enemies of religion cannot leave it alone. They laboriously attempt to smash religion. They cannot smash religion; but they do smash everything else. With your queries and dilemmas you have made no havoc in faith,: from the first it was a transcendental conviction; it cannot be made any more transcendental than it was. But you have (if that is any comfort to you) made a certain havoc in common morals and common sense.


The opponents of our religion do not commit us to accepting their axioms; our axioms remain what they were before; but they do commit themselves to every doctrine of insanity and despair. They do not hit us, but they do plunge past us into the marsh and the abyss. Mr. Blatchford cannot commit us to the comment that man is not the image of his maker for that statement is as dogmatic as its denial. But he can and does commit himself to the statement, humanly ludicrous and intolerable, that I must not blame a bully or praise the man who knocks him down. Evolutionists cannot drive us, because of the nameless gradation in Nature, to deny the personality of God, for a personal God might as well work by gradations as in any other way; but they do drive themselves, through those gradations, to deny the existence of a personal Mr. Jones, because he is within the scope of evolution and his edges are rubbed away. The evolutionists uproot the world, but not the flowers. The Titans never scaled heaven, but they laid waste the earth.

Low Sunday - Feast of Divine Mercy

John 20 : 19* On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21* Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." 22* And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23* If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." 24* Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe." 26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, "Peace be with you." 27* Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing." 28 Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29* Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."





Sermon of St Augustine [from today's office]
I speak to you who have just been reborn in baptism, my little children in Christ, you who are the new offspring of the Church, gift of the Father, proof of Mother Church’s fruitfulness. All of you who stand fast in the Lord are a holy seed, a new colony of bees, the very flower of our ministry and fruit of our toil, my joy and my crown. It is the words of the Apostle that I address to you: Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh and its desires, so that you may be clothed with the life of him whom you have put on in this sacrament. You have all been clothed with Christ by your baptism in him. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Such is the power of this sacrament: it is a sacrament of new life which begins here and now with the forgiveness of all past sins, and will be brought to completion in the resurrection of the dead. You have been buried with Christ by baptism into death in order that, as Christ has risen from the dead, you also may walk in newness of life.
You are walking now by faith, still on pilgrimage in a mortal body away from the Lord; but he to whom your steps are directed is himself the sure and certain way for you: Jesus Christ, who for our sake became man. For all who fear him he has stored up abundant happiness, which he will reveal to those who hope in him, bringing it to completion when we have attained the reality which even now we possess in hope.
This is the octave day of your new birth. Today is fulfilled in you the sign of faith that was prefigured in the Old Testament by the circumcision of the flesh on the eighth day after birth.
When the Lord rose from the dead, he put off the mortality of the flesh; his risen body was still the same body, but it was no longer subject to death. By his resurrection he consecrated Sunday, or the Lord’s day. Though the third after his passion, this day is the eighth after the Sabbath, and thus also the first day of the week.

And so your own hope of resurrection, though not yet realised, is sure and certain, because you have received the sacrament or sign of this reality, and have been given the pledge of the Spirit. If, then, you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your hearts on heavenly things, not the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, your life, appears, then you too will appear with him in glory.