Sixteen years after her first stab at Elizabeth, Bette Davis returns in The Virgin Queen (1955). It's a real treat to see Good Queen Bette again, even if the film surrounding her is a trifle.
Dashing solider/sailor Sir Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd) arrives in London to gain the Queen's (Bette Davis) favor and support for an expedition to the Americas. Elizabeth becomes infatuated with Sir Walter, keeping him at court and preventing his expedition. Sir Walter falls for Elizabeth's maid, Beth Throgmorton (Joan Collins), and marries her secretly. When the Queen finds out, she angrily signs a death warrant for Raleigh and his consort.
The Virgin Queen is a pretty looking film, with Charles G. Clarke's brilliant Cinemascope photography and impeccable art direction. Scenarists Harry Brown and Mindret Lord provide some snappy dialogue and clever bits of court intrigue, as when Raleigh relieves a gormless tailor of the cloak he's made for the French ambassador. But it feels stuffy under Henry Koster's workmanlike direction: at 92 minutes Virgin's plot never really gets off the ground. A predictable love triangle, Franz Waxman's generic score, and boring supporting cast don't help matters.
Bette Davis saves the film with an enjoyable performance. If the film's Elizabeth is fairly one-dimensional, Bette has fun biting off crisp dialogue with abandon, raging like a harridan and blowing her co-stars off the screen. Richard Todd (Operation Crossbow) is dashing but colorless, while fetching Joan Collins (The Bravados) handles her character arc poorly. Somewhere among the cast are Rod Taylor and Leslie Parrish (The Manchurian Candidate).
The Virgin Queen is an unambitious, disposable costume drama. But if you liked Bette Davis in The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, you'll likely enjoy her reprise.
As has been widely reported, the Journal of Medical Ethics has published a paper in which medical 'ethicists' argue the case for 'post-birth abortion' of new born babies. From what I have read of comments on The Telegraph's coverage of the article, there is a palpable sense of shock and disbelief that such an article should make an entrance into the public domain. This is the kind of thing you expect medical 'ethicists' to think, or perhaps even say between themselves while debating medical ethics. It isn't the kind of thing you would expect to find in a journal for the British Medical Journal Group.
It is, of course, reassuring that readers of The Telegraph are overwhelmingly not in favour of new born baby killing, but we should not fall into the trap of believing that this ludicrous and repugnant idea ends today, once it has been trashed by the British public.
Neither should we be so naive as to think that this is just a case of medical philosophers disappearing so far up their own behinds that they believe that only persons who can disappear up their own behinds are human. This isn't a joke or a 'let's really think outside the box' moment. Other Catholic commentators, likeWill Heaven and Caroline Farrow,have discerned rightly that this kind of paper is a boon to the pro-life movement because it demonstrates how very fragile is the house of cards built by a medical profession that professes to be at ease with abortion. The paper writers say, if we're saying yes to abortion, then why not yes to this? It's a cold, brutal, logical conclusion which steers well away from any sense of human sympathy or well, humanity. It also sheds more light on abortion in general, an issue that simply refuses to lay down, die and reside in a surgical waste bin.
However, with all that said, the inclusion in such a prestigious and well-respected journal of this article is, in my opinion, a 'feeler' article, testing the public mood. You see, with all great, mind-blowing breaches of natural law which end up becoming tolerated and then normalised in any society, it always starts exactly like this. If you had told a tweed wearing English gent in the 1940s and 1950s, that in approximately about 60 years later, the Government would be considering 'gay marriage', he would simply say, "Ah, I love a gay marriage. O, how happy and gay was the marriage I attended last week, of my niece to her fiance. He's a banker you know!' If you told him that what you meant was that men would be marrying men, he would choke on his pipe.
If you told a woman in the 1940s and 1950s that in the year 2011, a man and a woman would be able to go to the National Health Service and be referred to a clinic where the woman could have her unborn child 'terminated' for more or less any reason, including 'social reasons', or on the grounds of gender, disability or genetic disorder of one kind or another, the woman would say something like, "Terminated? Babies? Are you sure you're not talking about the 6:15 to Littlehampton?" If you told the same woman that the same society in 2011 would allow and enshrine in the law of the land the creation of IVF babies which involve babies being made outside of the mother's womb, in laboratories, she would look at you quizzically and think you quite mad. If you told her countless embryoes were destroyed in the process she'd think you nutty. If you told her that unborn children would basically be farmed on an industrial scale she'd wonder, in 1945, why we bothered fighting Hitler.
Sadly, while its comforting to think that British society would today most likely throw its arms up in the air about a future of legalised infanticide, all it takes to change the mind of society is a drip-drip approach to broaching the issue and having it discussed, having 'respected' people discuss it, keeping the issue afloat, using the mass media to normalise the discussion and within 50 years, you've changed the culture enough for the culture to accept it. It took a long for the eugenics movement of the 1920s that spawned the monster of abortion to culimate the Abortion Act (1967), but in the end, through powerful propaganda, it achieved its aims. Now, the same movement is attempting the next phase of the program. You think it is ridiculous, and it sounds ridiculous, but this is how it always begins. I'd be pleasantly surprised if Professor Dawkins publicly condemned this paper. For the time being, the paper puts pro-abortionists on the backfoot and forces them to justify their position, but at the same time, cold logic lends itself to the conclusion reached by the 'ethicists' at the BMJ and, sadly, cold, reductivist logic is, in an increasingly secularised Britain, the order of the day.
You see, while abortion was sold to the general public as a 'woman's choice' about what she does with 'her body', abortion was essentially one flank aimed at breaking down the long-held public morality on sex and reproduction, along with its wicked twin sister, artificial contraception. I sincerely doubt, however that the long-term aim of an abortive society was to give women choice or to empower women. I sincerely suspect that the long-term aim of the creation of an abortive society was to enable the future society - the utopia imagined by the misanthropic, sociopathic and frankly psychopathic eugenicists of those days, many of whom are still alive today - to take assertive action on weeding out from human society the kind of people eugenicists like Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger thought should be 'pruned from the vine' of society. In other words, the poor, feckless (people like me really), the mentally ill, the disabled, the lame, the deaf, the dumb, the blacks, and, unattractive, yes, even the homosexuals, and anyone who is genetically 'unfit' for human society, could be blocked from entry into the 'utopian' world which, with the help of mad crackpot scientists, is in the meantime searching for the elixir of life and eternal youth.
All that may sound completely insane and preposterously evil, but you have to understand the mindset of those who support the eugenics movement in the United Kingdom, be it tacitly or actively and also appreciate that many of them work in genetics and medicine, as well as areas like psychiatry, social services and 'reproductive health'. A part of me thinks that this latest BMJ paper is strange because one would think that women who wanted to know it they're baby was going to be born 'imperfect' would dispatch the order to 'seek and destroy' the unborn 'unfit' baby prior to birth. That's the real reason, of course, that we have pre-natal scans. Perhaps, this academic suggestion made in the Journal of Medical Ethics, really, is just to find a way to ensure that those who don't want scans but who then realise their baby has been born with Down's Syndrome have a legal loophole to fall back on to avoid the unwanted Downs baby, in the heartless hope that the 10% of Down's Syndrome babies who are not aborted before birth, will be aborted after birth in 40 years time, once it has become so rare and socially unacceptable to give birth to a Downs Syndrome child, or child with any disability, in that dystopian vision of Britain. The aim of the eugenicists, many of whom are geneticists, is to rid the world of downs syndrome. While that entails ridding the World of babies who suffer from Downs, that's just the price that the babies have to pay in order to help us to rid the world of the disease. That's the logic. These people imagine a bright vision of Britain which is, in the words of the British Eugenics Society member, William Beveridge, free of the 'Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. How do you achieve that? You ensure that the 'kind of people' who fall into these categories are never born in the first place (or are not allowed to live).
Yet, and yet, it was the vision of society that was held by eugenicists of the 1920s and 30s. It was the vision of society held by Hitler and the Nazis. It is the vision of a sizable number working in medicine, genetics and other fields today. An interesting footnote to the vision is that Stonewall should be wary to lend too much support to this vision of a society in which IVF, abortion and, perhaps in future, 'post-birth abortion' becomes the certified norm for those with genetic defects. I say this because there are still those working in the field of genetics and medicine who believe that homosexuality is a genetic defect, regardless of the availability of concrete research that backs up that belief. In future, because, let's face it, not everyone is going to be happy after a pre-natal scan has revealed the homosexual gene, it could be homosexuals that are targeted as part of the future 'homocide' of the human race, because, from what I read of Marie Stopes, she didn't have much time for the gays either.
The irony is that people will read the articles and the news story of this academic paper and think that this is impossible in Britain. Well, if it is possible for a 'civilised' country like China to have its State police force infanticide on families in the name of population control, then why is it impossible for it to take place in Europe? Don't be too surprised if this idea one day takes off in the UK, because its already going on elsewhere. The other great irony is that the architects of this revolution in human understanding of who is an 'actual human' and who is not, believe that eugenics is inherently about human progress. Those people forget that us Brits were happily killing our unwanted, defected two year olds, or sacrificing them to appease 'angry god's' until those irritating Catholics came along to tell us not to do that kind of thing and to honour the supreme Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary, made present at every Mass.
So, its nice that the overwhelming majority of people will be aghast at this latest 'academic paper', but don't be too surprised if in 40 years time, its a regular feature of British life. The only defense against the massacre of the innocent unborn, and, indeed born, is the Christian Faith. Christianity built the civilisation in which we are fortunate enough to live. As the pillars of Christianity are removed from the public sphere, don't be surprised when the roof of the civilisation collapses as in an earthquake, and like in an earthquake, we will be calling it a miracle when a newborn is pulled out from the rubble...alive.
After many years in the traditional pew I no longer experience angst or even anger when I come under attack, although, I admit to being a bit ratty when I receive silly invective in the comments box at times.
Perhaps peace of mind is an age thing but, I also find that by attempting to laugh at myself and at the inanity of both the world and the Catholic Church authorities in England and Wales, life becomes worth living.
My blogging is a release of the pent up frustrations 23 years of fighting Bishops, teachers, nuns, priests and laity who have all done their damnedest to baulk the attempts of my wife and myself to bring our children up within the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
So it is good to be able to laugh a great deal of the time or, as Archbishop Sheen described it: "Be paradoxically intentioned"
I was thinking earlier today about music and romantic love and how, down the ages, the 'love song' or the 'wedding song' really doesn't fit with the whole appeal to 'love' made by proponents of 'gay marriage'.
Of course, I'll doubtless be called a 'bigoted homophobe' for saying this, even though I've been nothing but honest about my 'orientation' so best I say it now while there is a modicum of free speech in the country. What I was thinking is this: I can't, off the top of my head, think of any 'gay love' songs that say 'wedding' or even 'happy long term relationship of mutual love, happiness and respect'. I can't really think of any 'gay love' songs to be honest - I mean, not many that speak of the unbridled joy of same-sex attraction.
The only songs that I know which are either blatantly or obliquely about 'gay love' or gay attraction are either a) tortured, melancholic, conflicted or depressing, b) about a sense of personal liberation (rather than love for another human being), c) glorifying the escapism and hedonism of 'the scene' or, d) 'us' vs 'them', like Bonnie and Clyde e) concerning lust and desire in isolation, rather than genuine romantic love for another. When artists want to take on homosexuality in their music, invariably it is overtly political, strident and aiming to shock the audience - culturally, music has been a force in the acceptance of homosexuality. Anyone remember Frankie Goes to Hollywood?
At best, the 'gay love' song is about intense loyalty in the face of a World that cannot understand. Take this song, by The Smiths. Part of the homosexual experience is depicted here in terms of 'forbidden fruit' picked by lovers that society shuns.
Out of the assorted 'out' modern songwriters, we have people such as George Michael and Elton John. Even the modern music scene is not teeming with 'out' homosexual life. Ironically, even though both stars would define themselves as 'gay', their best and most memorable 'love songs' were directed towards the female sex. Elton, remember, was once married...properly married. George Michael was once in music videos a-courting ladies.
Since gay 'anthems' really only emerged out of the ghetto in the 1980s (unless we're going to count 'Village People's 'YMCA') I struggle to find anything that might be played at a 'gay wedding' which would support the notion of same-sex attraction or 'homosexual love' written by a homosexual man for his lover. A classic anthem by Queen's Freddie Mercury was 'I Want to Break Free' and I expect that many of his fans were not really aware of his homosexuality until later after Freddie's death. Yet, again, if that song is about sexuality, then its about liberation - what kind of liberation is the artist really seeking? I really think it depends on what level you want to read the 'secrets of the soul' which are laid bare in composition.
Gay music depends on tension and conflict - not love. It is not usually about happiness in another. It never says 'wedding'. Interestingly, the opposite is true. It is almost as if music composed by homosexual artists trying to deal with the issue of same-sex attraction have tended towards either the self-expressive (rather than love expressive, unless, that is, we're talking about self-love) or the depressive. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying that homosexuals have written some classic love songs, but the focus, even for those homosexuals who have composed great love songs, tends strangely towards the opposite gender. 'You're the Best Friend' was written by Freddie Mercury about a woman who he loved very much. There is a sense that when homosexuals try to compose 'love songs' for men who they are involved with passionately or on a sexual basis, that the songs are full of conflict and not a small measure of pain.
People like Stonewall would argue from a Marxist liberation point of view that the reason for this is because society has yet to fully accept and embrace 'gay love' and so men will feel conflicted about their identity until they fully come out and society fully embraces it. In that sense, you could say that Stonewall's supporters treat 'coming out' like Protestant Evangelicals do 'believing on the name of the Lord Jesus'. In other words, if you don't feel 100% a-ok about your homosexuality, its because your just a shy type and society has oppressed you. If society teaches children about homosexuality, and there is gay marriage, and everyone is comfortable with it, then one day, you will never feel uncomfortable about your sexual identity in the slightest, nor suffer any feelings of personal guilt. In this sense, the gay movement is quasi-religious in the sense that it believes salvation is a collective task, involving all of society, towards gay 'liberation'. Take this Pet Shop Boys cover of the Village People's 'Go West' as an example.
When the message isn't political there can be some genuine discomfort there, as if homosexuality has marked the person out. Take this song, from the 1980s, by Bronski Beat. Can you feel this guy's pain? It seems to be more than just about rejection from family, or society, but there is a sense of personal stigma as well...
On the other hand, I can think of plenty of fraternal love songs written by gay men about those who they are not involved with sexually, as well as those with whom they would like to be involved sexually - but that is a different thing - that is fantasy and I think that the 'gay world' deals very much in fantasy and yearning for 'something' (perhaps something we could call God). This, however, is still a different phenomena to romantic love.
As far as I can see, just thinking about my not inconsiderable knowledge of modern rock and pop, I struggle to think of a song by an artist that says, 'I'm totally comfortable with my homosexuality, I know you are too, these feelings are totally natural and I want to marry you, darling - let's invite all the family!'. Even what has become a 'gay anthem', Lady Gaga's 'Born this Way' is about anger and rebellion - against society and, implicitly, against God and the Church. There's usually a hint of this being somewhat illicit, not necessarily because of societal perception, but a sense of personal darkness in the soul. Essentially, most music is about soul-baring, unless its something done purely for commercial purposes. Those artists who are genuinely honest about 'baring' their conflicted emotions on such matters are few and rare because such honesty takes a level of self-awareness and the ability to go beneath the artifice and mask of everyday life.
I have, in my time, been to quite a few gay bars and clubs and I can tell you that its a 'scene' that is insular, yet strangely exclusive. I found that I mainly didn't fit in because I wasn't doing drugs. Similarly, the music played in most of the bars tends towards lyrics about escapism, lust, personal liberation and the idea of getting 'high' - not necessarily on drugs, though I expect the music of many gay clubs sounds better on drugs.
The sad fact is that 'gay wedding' parties, if they are to express real human love between two people of the same-sex looking forward to a lifetime of Cameronian 'commitment' and enjoying other people's children, then if they want love songs, they'll be relying on love songs about the miracle of love between men and women and the unique gift of human sexuality for unitive and procreative love between members of the opposite sex. That's what wedding songs instinctively are. Either that or its ABBA's 'Dancing Queen', Gloria Gaynor's 'I Will Survive' or Lady Gaga's 'Born this Way'. These are famous 'gay anthems' yet none of them are really about love. They're about self-glorification. What the gay community doesn't have is proper gay wedding 'love songs' and all those love songs that are famous are about the love of a man for a woman or a woman for a man. Even the racy numbers say, 'I want to be with you forever', like this one...
Hmm...Now this is what I call about baby-making music! Ladies and gentleman, I feel nearly ready to rest my case. These are wedding songs, but if they are, they are clearly about the love of a man for a woman or vice versa. That's just what wedding songs are.
I can't imagine a gay wedding love song that has the raw unleashing of human happiness in another person of, say, the walrus of love himself.
Natural marriage 5 - 0 Gay Marriage. Don't ask me how I worked that score out. Gay marriage may have the best 'gay anthems', but few 'gay anthems' are about love or even devotion to one person other than yourself. Yes, as they say, the Devil may have the best 'anthems' but now we can say that God's still got the best tunes.
In simpler days, teachers would tell children how to cope with 'puppy love'. Now, they don't bother. Now they just tell them how to do it 'doggie style'. And to 'wear a condom', naturally...
As the first programme in the series 'Catholics' produced such a flurry of comment I thought all might appreciate a reminder to watch part two.
Due to be screened at 9pm Thursday 1st March, the second instalment looks at children and, specifically, how they prepare to make their First Holy Communion.
Here is what the Beeb blurb says about it:
'Show me the child of seven and I'll show you the man', goes the Jesuit proverb. Award-winning documentary filmmaker Richard Alwyn observes the truth of the saying in this film about children becoming Catholic. Filmed throughout Lent and into summer 2011, it focuses on the children of St Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School in Chipping, Lancashire. The tiny rural school has 33 pupils, six of whom are preparing to make their First Holy Communion. Alwyn's lyrical, poignant film observes the essence of Catholicism being distilled into young children. Encouraged to celebrate the riches of the natural world and to remember those less fortunate than themselves, the children are also required to reflect on Christ's brutal death and resurrection. Occasionally, this graphic story of suffering might seem to threaten the children's infectious charm and innocence. The local parish priest, Fr Anthony Grimshaw, now in his 70s, has a strong presence in the children's lives. To the younger ones he's the avuncular character who comes into school to read Winnie the Pooh. To the older ones, he is more 'on message', talking with them about faith and fielding questions about his belief in the existence of Satan in this world. Around this observation of the Catholic life of the children and the school is the story of a handful of its pupils, aged seven and eight, preparing for their First Holy Communion. Here, the children are introduced to the bewildering mystery at the heart of the Catholic faith - when they believe bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This beautiful film is full of the spirit of childhood and shows how being Catholic is a complex identity that can bring both agony and ecstasy."
Many year ago I knew Chipping, it has or had an excellent pub, The Dog and Partridge, so that element of nostalgia will add a little touch of zest to my viewing.
I will keep an open mind as to what sort of feast will be spread out for us but I am mentally reserving a bet as to how it will unfold.
That part of Lancashire is rich in Catholic Reformation history and we owe much to those men and women who gave their lives so readily. I hope and pray that the content of the programme reflects their sacrifice as well as the Supreme one.
She has been in the news rather a lot over the past few days, commenting on marriage and stating that neither the Church, nor the State has rights over marriage (in this instance, homosexual and lesbian marriage). The rights belong, so she claims, rather in Comrade Napoleon fashion, to the people.
I thought it strange for a Cabinet Minister to come out with a blunt claim such as this, taking on the collective might of the Christian denominations, but then I discovered that she is the Equalities Minister anda Liberal Democrat MP.
For any North American readers of this post, this party ranks as being slightly more extreme than the Loony Communist Party in my book.
And, as any fool knows, Commies and Lib Dems like to rule by coercion and bullying.
They are also, I suspect, the top party for (allegedly) having a history of MPs with rather peculiar sexual inclinations in their ranks, having long overtaken the Tories in this respect. I cite this fact only to illustrate that a moral code does not hold any awe for the party that introduced the holocaust of abortion to Great Britain.
Was it Chicago's Cardinal George who recently stated this gem of wisdom?
" I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr"
The Faith is under more pressure today, globally, than, I suspect at any other period of history. The ongoing and relentless onslaught of the abortionists, the anti-life brigade, the homomaniacs and eroticists must surely be at an all time high and, as Archbishop Sheen used to say:
"That makes it a wonderful time in which to be a Catholic"
So when the secular pressure becomes too much for me, the words of a well known hymn always spring to mind. You seldom hear it these days and probably you would never hear it in an assembly of Nouveau Catholiques.
Here it is:
Faith of our fathers, living still In spite of dungeon, fire and sword, O how our hearts beat high with joy Whene'er we hear that glorious word! Faith of our fathers! holy faith! We will be true to thee till death!
Our fathers, chained in prisons dark, Were still in heart and conscience free; And blest would be their children's fate, If they, like them should die for thee: Faith of our fathers! holy faith! We will be true to thee till death!
Faith of our fathers, we will strive To win all nations unto thee; And through the truth that comes from God Mankind shall then indeed be free. Faith of our fathers! holy faith! We will be true to thee till death!
Faith of our fathers, we will love Both friend and foe in all our strife, And preach thee, too, as love knows how By kindly words and virtuous life. Faith of our fathers! holy faith! We will be true to thee till death!
5. Faith of our fathers we will strive To win all nations unto Thee! And thro' the truth that comes from God Mankind shall then be truly free: Faith of our fathers! Holy faith! We will be true to Thee till death!
Our journey through Tudor England continues with Elizabeth I (2005). Tom Hooper presents an intelligent, stirring miniseries that avoids the speculative melodrama and soggy romanticism of recent Tudor efforts. With a smart script and the sterling Helen Mirren, it's a first-class work.
In 1578, Elizabeth's (Helen Mirren) throne is reasonably secure, but she still desires marriage. Unable to wed lover Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester (Jeremy Irons), Elizabeth woos the Duke of Anjou (Jeremie Covillault), but the match falls through. Catholics plot against the Queen and the Spanish Armada comes calling. Ministers William Cecil, Lord Burghley (Ian McDiarmid) and Francis Walsingham (Patrick Malahide) argue that the captive Mary Queen of Scots (Barbara Flynn) remains a threat, and Elizabeth agonizes over whether to execute a "God-anointed Queen."
After Leicester's death, his stepson Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (Hugh Dancy) becomes the Queen's new favorite. Essex abuses his position to gain military commands, secure tax revenue and place friends in power. Burghley and Walsingham pass away, and Essex goes to Ireland to suppress an uprising. An isolated Elizabeth leans on Robert Cecil (Toby Jones), Burghley's son, for guidance when Essex's ambition escalates to rebellion.
Elizabeth I's sober approach lifts it above other recent Tudor epics. Nigel Williams's script bristles with biting wit, sharply drawn characters and a real sense of Elizabeth's time. Hooper and Williams make familiar personages and events seem fresh, precisely where Elizabeth: the Golden Age faltered. The show keeps the romance tasteful: Elizabeth shares only a few hesitant kisses with her favorites. In Elizabeth I, however, the personal and political are closely interwoven.
This series provides a complex, credible Elizabeth. Queen Bess inherited not only Henry VIII's political skill but also his uneven temprament. Her emotions and allegiance veer wildly, a level-headed monarch one moment, a vain, shrieking harpy the next. Her love for Leicester is genuine, but her infatuation with the much younger Essex reeks of desperation. She forgives him for repeated indiscretions and grants him unearned power. This Elizabeth sacrifices love with the utmost reluctance, allowing her private ills to seep into her statescraft.
Elizabeth's favorites play a dangerous game, trading on their Queen's affection for titles and influence. Frustrated by Elizabeth's caprice, both Leicester and Essex take mistresses and foolishly think they can retain the Queen's favor. Where Leicester learns to accept Elizabeth's "friendship," Essex thinks her love entitles him to kingly power, even marriage. He dies earnestly (if not honestly) proclaiming the Cecils his malefactors, when he clearly dug his own grave.
While court intrigues take a backseat to Elizabeth's personal life, there's plenty of politicking to savor. Elizabeth needs her ministers to keep things on an even keel but spars with them nonetheless. Anjou seems an ideal suitor until Burghley decides his incompetence runs contrary to England's interests. Walsingham rigs the evidence against Mary Stuart and strong arms Elizabeth into ordering her execution. Elizabeth then rewrites the warrant to make them shoulder the guilt. Robert learns that propriety and competence earn the Queen's respect; favorites come and go but a good councilor is constant.
Director Tom Hooper went on to the celebrated John Adamsand The King's Speech. He's quite good here, managing a beautifully shot, large scale production without the annoying camera work of the aforementioned shows. The show is long (211 minutes) and occasionally slow, but Hooper keeps it lively with rich imagery and art direction; he stages a swordfight, a modest-sized battle scene and some gruesome executions along the way.
Helen Mirren joins Bette Davis and Glenda Jackson in the Elizabethan upper tier. Mirren isn't afraid to look dowdy or make Elizabeth unlikeable, going for the human even when repugnant. She handles Elizabeth's ranting rages, regal monologues, and desperate pining with equal aplomb. It's a difficult, complex characterization that Mirren masterfully pulls off.
Jeremy Irons gets his best role in ages. Irons has some great banter with Mirren and crafts a memorably tragic character, endlessly frustrated by his ambiguous standing with the Queen. Hugh Dancy's charismatic performance is equally memorable. Dancy is appropriately dashing, arrogant and rash, allowing his ego and entitlement to override common sense.
Toby Jones (Captain America) gets a standout role as the shrewd Robert Cecil. Ian McDiarmid and Patrick Malahide play Elizabeth's senior ministers with dry wit and professional detachment. Jeremie Covillault's sensitive Anjou is a nice departure from Vincent Cassel's effete stereotype in Elizabeth. Barbara Flynn appears briefly as Mary Stuart; Groggy fondly remembers her as Robbie Coltrane's estranged wife on Cracker.
Elizabeth I is the best Tudor film in a long time. We all enjoy Natalie Dormer's heaving bosom (or maybe you're into Jonathan Rhys-Myers?), but it's nice to see an Elizabethan epic take its subject seriously.
Yet the civil authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia routinely incinerate hundreds if not thousands of them each year.
Many naive or, possibly, evangelistic Christians are apprehended every day in Saudi Arabia as they arrive on their flight from the Americas or Europe.
In their luggage is a Bible, sometimes, many Bibles.
To bring any Christian literature into the country is against the law in Saudi and so, all materials will be confiscated and disposed of.
The penalties can be harsh but one thing is certain, the holy books will be burnt (hopefully, before any act of sacrilege can be committed).
It was a mindless act of stupidity on the part of those soldiers who burnt the copies of the Koran - but perhaps the Muslim community might like to get a perspective on the issue.
In fact, I will, I like almost all that I read about the man but, above all, as with Santorum, I like the fact that he attracts bitter and vile criticism from his opponents, that means, in my book, that he has moral values and is not afraid to speak out when required to do so.
Just imagine, a Catholic President in the USA and another Catholic as Premier in Australia - things could be looking up.
Described as being " a socially conservative politician" - that rates an eight out of ten in my poll; he is also accused of "wearing his Catholicism on his sleeve" - better and better.
Born in London to expat Australian parents he entered a seminary in 1980 but decided the priesthood was not for him. He is not afraid to hit back at the leftish wing of the Catholic faith and, once when challenged by priests he responded with:
"The priesthood gives someone the power to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. It doesn't give someone the power to convert poor logic into good logic."
Just as America needs a Santorum, so Australia needs an Abbott. The country is floundering in a morass of liberal political correctness, or so I read. I will have a chance to see at first hand in a few weeks time when I travel out there.
But, there is a caveat, according to his online biographical details, Abbott, (whilst being Pro Life) is also in favour of legal abortions on a highly restricted basis.
This view, if true, is totally unCatholic and unacceptable. Strange that one who has studied theology and philosophy within a seminary environment can go down that route and still call themselves Catholic. But, I guess, if Australia is as dissolute as we are told, then a Catholic leader who is prepared to bend his beliefs would probably do well in the polls. Sad but true.
But then, that's what the liberal Catholics do is it not?
Perhaps Tony Abbott needs our Rosaries not just for his election but also for his faith. He might like to look to Rick Santorum's firm moral stance as an example of a fearless approach to electioneering (and start wearing sleeveless cardigans).
Just in case you missed it, there is a rather special Mass tomorrow at St Mary Magdalen's. If you're a Brightonian or in any way local, or happen to be in Brighton today, come to the 150th Anniversary Celebration Mass of St Mary Magdalen Church. For future events and news, see the 150 Years website.
Bishop Mark Davies has issued a Lenten pastoral letter calling upon Catholics in the Diocese of Shrewsbury to wake up to the reality of Hell.
It is a sad reflection of the Church in England and Wales that a Bishop discussing the Church's teaching on the eternal fate of those who die separated from God by free will, should be newsworthy. All Bishops, surely, should be mentioning the Four Last Things to the Faithful at least once a year. This shouldn't really be Catholic news, but incredibly, it is.
It is better for us to wake up to reality of Hell in this life, rather than to wake up to the reality of Hell in the life of the next. Certainly, the Church's Doctrine on Hell puts paid to those arguments against us by those who posit that we hold God to be a cuddly 'sky fairy' figure who nods approvingly of human conduct whatever we believe or do, or indeed, what we do not do. Having said that, even the Church's Doctrine on Purgatory should inspire us to examine our consciences this Lent and do penance, because I hear that even in Purgatory a minute feels like a thousand years and that that minute is not particularly pleasant. Ultimately, the Church's teaching on Hell reminds us that in order for us to be saved, we must choose between Good and Evil, between God's will and that of our own, between Christ and liberation in His Kingdom, or Satan and slavery in his. God bless Bishop Mark Davies for taking the opportunity in Lent to remind us to use the time we have in this life wisely, in order that we may prepare for eternity.
Grace upon grace upon grace is offered to us since God wills that no man or woman should be lost. Christ nourishes His Body, the Church with the Sacraments of Salvation and Grace and if we co-operate with Him, then we may hope for everlasting life. Still, that does not stop the forces of Hell from assailing the Church, even if they can never prevail against Her and with 'Equality' laws operating in a manner so Machiavellian and conspiratorially against the Bride of Christ, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Church is, already, in the West, living in times of latent persecution.
Personally speaking, I find it hard to understand the reasoning behind Archbishop Vincent Nichols's recent remarks to the effect that the Church in England is not facing a measure of persecution. Granted, the order has not been given to euthanise those who don't agree with the secularist forces within Government, but nonetheless, I find it hard to believe that a Catholic Archbishop can put such a shiny gloss of what is, actually, a deeply difficult time for the Catholic Church and all those who hold fast to the Teaching of the Apostles. It is true to say that the Church in England is not facing what a Christian pastor in Iran is facing, but persecution does not necessarily have to involve death by stoning, hanging or the sword. It can simply mean that the Church is not free to act in accordance with Her Conscience in certain areas, such as the Church's teaching on sexuality, marriage and the family.
After all, Catholic adoption agencies had to close down because of a law which received the backing of a Prime Minister who later went on to become Catholic. His Grace, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, responded to the question on persecution in the United Kingdom by saying, "I personally don't feel in the least bit persecuted. I don't think Christians should use that word," he said. I found this an odd thing for the Archbishop to say, given that His Grace also says, quite rightly, of the current direction taken by the UK Government, "...what might have started out as an acknowledgement of a variety of religious and philosophical positions has produced a seeming determination to tear the legal and therefore cultural life of the country away from its Christian roots."
This, ironically, is the reason for the latent persecution of Christians in the United Kingdom, in my personal view. His Grace describes the closure of the Church's adoption agencies as an "act of intolerance". Perhaps His Grace feels that the magnitude of the sufferings of the Church in other parts of the World is so great and bloody that it is insulting to them to describe the incremental movement of the Government's hand, as it reaches out and closes its grasp around the neck of the Bride of Christ, innocent and blissfully unaware as She is of what is to come, all in the name of 'Equality'.
For example, I cannot see Catholic schools being at liberty to teach that marriage is something that takes place between one man and one woman, exclusively, for too long, if the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed. If His Grace has been granted 'reassurances' from Government, then His Grace would do well to recall how quickly 'reassurances' can be retracted by something so simple as the switching of a party in opposition to a party in power and if Civil Partnerships were a foot in the door to Gay Marriage, then Gay Marriage is a foot in the door to the education of Catholic school children in the exotic world of homosexuality or even the silencing of the Catholic Church on matters of sex and sexuality by the law of the land. Even the Catholic blogosphere, in five years, could be even more 'underground' than it already is. Still, for some, hope surely springs eternal.
Unless His Grace is going to personally stand in Catholic classrooms to tell teachers that lessons on mutual masturbation, buggery and fisting are 'off-limits', then may I suggest that His Grace throws his considerable apostolic weight fully behind Lord Carey who is spearheading the Campaign for Marriage petition, however imperfect are its statements. It may not be perfect. It may not even be Catholic. But, at the moment, its the best thing we've had from any Churchman on how to combat the new Stonewall-backed bill which will, I assure you, quite literally shaft the Church from behind.
Personally, I prefer to the plain speaking Catholic honesty of Bishop Mark Davies, who shows a great deal of concern for the eternal welfare of the Catholics of his Diocese and, through the power of the media, those who dwell beyond it. I suppose that in one sense, Bishop Mark Davies is demonstrating a degree of concerned vision that I fear His Grace, the Archbishop of Westminster, appears to lack. After all, Bishop Mark Davies is only telling us to take some time out and reflect on 'what's down the road,' for 'after Death, comes Judgment'.
Daily Telegraph blogger and Politicalbetting.com Editor, Mike Smithson claims that Santorum is now slightly behind Romney in the latest forecasts, you may read the full post HERE.
And the reason why is explained here in a brief extract:-
"An aspect of the polling detail, however, highlighted a trend that we have seen in many surveys during the past month: Santorum is doing reasonably well with male voters but he is miles behind with women. Thus in the ARG survey, Santorum led Romney by 43% to 32% with the men in the sample, while Romney led Santorum by 47% to 26% with the women".
Of course, what Mike Smithson does not realise is, that, Santorum has the power of Our Lady behind him. It is her intercession that will make this man the Republican nominee and eventual President, if Almighty God wills it.
And, if Rick Santorum maintains the sartorial advantage!
Santorum and his sleeveless jumper aka 'sweater vest'
A Róisín ná bíodh brón ort fé'r éirigh dhuit: Tá na bráithre 'teacht thar sáile 's iad ag triall ar muir, Tiocfaidh do phárdún ón bPápa is ón Róimh anoir 'S ní spárálfar fíon Spáinneach ar mo Róisín Dubh. Is fada an réim a léig mé léi ó inné 'dtí inniu, Trasna sléibhte go ndeachas léi, fé sheolta ar muir; An éirne is chaith mé 'léim í, cé gur mór é an sruth; 'S bhí ceol téad ar gach taobh díom is mo Róisín Dubh. Mhairbh tú mé, a bhrídeach, is nárbh fhearrde dhuit, Is go bhfuil m'anam istigh i ngean ort 's ní inné ná inniu; D'fhág tú lag anbhfann mé i ngné is i gcruth- Ná feall orm is mé i ngean ort, a Róisín Dubh. Shiubhalfainn féin an drúcht leat is fásaigh ghuirt, Mar shúil go bhfaighinn rún uait nó páirt dem thoil. A chraoibhín chumhra, gheallais domhsa go raibh grá agat dom -'S gurab í fíor-scoth na Mumhan í, mo Róisín Dubh. Dá mbeadh seisreach agam threabhfainn in aghaidh na gcnoc, is dhéanfainn soiscéal i lár an aifrinn do mo Róisín Dubh, bhéarfainn póg don chailín óg a bhéarfadh a hóighe dhom, is dhéanfainn cleas ar chúl an leasa le mo Róisín Dubh. Beidh an Éirne 'na tuiltibh tréana is réabfar cnoic, Beidh an fharraige 'na tonntaibh dearga is doirtfear fuil, Beidh gach gleann sléibhe ar fud éireann is móinte ar crith, Lá éigin sul a n-éagfaidh mo Róisín Dubh.
Little Rose, be not sad for all that hath behapped thee: The friars are coming across the sea, they march on the main. From the Pope shall come thy pardon, and from Rome, from the East- And stint not Spanish wine to my Little Dark Rose. Long the journey that I made with her from yesterday till today, Over mountains did I go with her, under the sails upon the sea, The Erne I passed by leaping, though wide the flood, And there was string music on each side of me and my Little Dark Rose! Thou hast slain me, O my bride, and may it serve thee no whit, For the soul within me loveth thee, not since yesterday nor today, Thou has left me weak and broken in mien and in shape, Betray me not who love thee, my Little Dark Rose! I would walk the dew with thee and the meadowy wastes, In hope of getting love from thee, or part of my will, Frangrant branch, thou didst promise me that thou hadst for me love- And sure the flower of all Munster is Little Dark Rose! Had I a yoke of horses I would plough against the hills, In middle-Mass I'd make a gospel of my Little Dark Rose, I'd give a kiss to the young girl that would give her mouth to me, And behind the liss would lie embracing my Little Dark Rose! The Erne shall rise in rude torrents, hills shall be rent, The sea shall roll in red waves, and blood be poured out, Every mountain glen in Ireland, and the bogs shall quake Some day ere shall perish my Little Dark Rose!
Elizabeth: the Golden Age (2007) was my first theatrical viewing in college. It was quite a hectic day: class on the butt-end of campus, losing my watch and getting a haircut from some weird Italian guy. Riding the bus to the theater, I got off at the wrong stop, was stranded in Squirrel Hill and had to wait for a very kind woman to guide me into town. Finally staggering into the theater, the projector broke down three times in the film's first ten minutes. Oh, and the movie sucked.
Sadly, the intervening years haven't improved my opinion. Elizabeth (1998) is historically murky but very entertaining, Shekhar Kapur showing a flare for period pageantry and classy melodrama. This belated sequel is a misbegotten farrago, recycling well-known history in a manner boring, offensive and ostentatious.
In 1585, Elizabeth I's (Cate Blanchett) throne is still threatened from within and without: Spain's Philip II (Jordi Molla) is preparing an invasion of England, while English Catholics under Anthony Babington (Eddie Redmayne) conspire to kill Elizabeth and place Mary Stuart (Samantha Morton) on the throne. But Elizabeth is too concerned with dashing explorer Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), who simultaneously charms the Queen and lady-in-waiting Bess Throckmorton (Abbie Cornish). Spymaster Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush) slowly unravels Phillip's scheme, forcing Elizabeth's understrength navy to square off against the Spanish Armada.
The Golden Age gets off on the wrong foot by covering well-trodden ground. Its subjects certainly could make interesting films, and individually they have: The Sea Hawk, The Virgin Queen, Mary, Queen of Scots. Just two years prior, in fact, Tom Hooper's Elizabeth I miniseries covered the same events. It's a bad sign when you immediately invite comparisons to other, better movies.
Nor is the execution better. Michael Hirst and William Nicholson's script is a mess, introducing multiple subplots without giving any of them breathing room. Kapur focuses on a silly love triangle that mines every imaginable cliche. Setpieces (an assassination attempt, Mary's execution) seem self-contained, the build-up so cursory they don't register at all. When the Armada finally arrives, we get a shockingly generic Henry V speech from Elizabeth and an effects-laden montage of exploding warships. Yawn.
A low point is some shockingly blunt anti-Catholic bigotry. Scenes of Philip scheming, conspirators plotting and Mary pouting are crammed with priests, rosaries, crucifixes and Latin chanting. Characters constantly call Elizabeth a whore and bastard. At one point, Philip chortles "Elizabeth is darkness, *I* am the light!", somehow stifling maniacal laughter. If read for contemporary parallels, the film's message is just depressing: Catholics (Muslims?) are unreasoning monsters, so why not kill them all? Good luck with that.
Golden Age is certainly a spectacle, all sumptuous costumes, ornate set design and crazy lighting. This culminates in a jawdropping scene where Elizabeth, branded a whore by a would-be assassin, stands bathed in radiant, heavenly light. Ordinarily I'd praise Kapur's efforts, but the imagery is baldly ostentatious, as if enough pretty pictures compensate for other deficiencies. Who cares about plot? Here's a shot of a horse swimming through a shipwreck, and a camera spinning around Elizabeth! Spinning!
Cate Blanchett is captivating as always. She's good as a monarch forced to reap the consequences of a loveless life and difficult reign. On the other hand, she doesn't go the extra mile like the best Elizabeths. Where Bette Davis smeared herself with fright makeup and Glenda Jackson shaved her head, Blanchett remains strikingly glamorous for a 50-something woman. Not that I'm complaining.
Geoffrey Rush is strangely watered-down, lacking his delicious deviousness from the first outing. An attempt to flesh out Walsingham with a treacherous brother (Adam Godley) amounts to little. Clive Owen mixes smug posturing with silly ramblings and Abbie Cornish is bland. Samantha Morton gets so little screen time she doesn't register. Tom Hollander (Land of the Blind) has an inconsequential bit.
All signs indicate Elizabeth: The Golden Age should be a good film. Unfortunately, it's a near-complete failure, buoyed only by pretty pictures and Cate Blanchett.
During his time at Downside, the young Ullathorne added manual labour to his daily routine of prayer and study; this is the Benedictine way - a blend of the ethereal and the earthly.
One of the many things that strikes me upon reading his autobiography is that, in that era, some 180 years ago, it appeared that young people were thrust into senior posts remarkably early.
Of course, WilliamUllathorne was a very obvious candidate for greatness but, straight from his schooling, and still a green deacon, he was sent to Ampleforth (it was a great school then) to hold a senior and responsible post (Prefect of Discipline) and then, shortly afterwards, Professor of Theology.
And, as the young Deacon Ullathorne began his duties he was faced with an issue of graffiti - have things changed so very little in the education system?
This is his account as he began his pastoral role at Ampleforth:
"Soon after this time my Superiors wished to advance me to the Priesthood, before I had completed the course of Theology.
But apprehending there might be difficulties raised by the Bishop about dispensation from time and interstices, a petition was sent to Rome, through Cardinal Weld, the Protector of the English Benedictines.
His Eminence replied that it belonged not to the dignity of a Cardinal to act as agent as well as protector ; and so, to my individual satisfaction, I escaped from what I thought a premature ordination.
However, I was not destined to continue my studies ; but with the Rev. Mr. Sinnot, a deacon as well as myself, I was sent to assist the new Prior in restoring the Monastery and College of Ampleforth after the great desolation caused by the events above referred to. Soon after arriving there I was appointed Professor of Theology to a small class ; but by the time I had prepared the first lesson the Prior had changed his mind, put an Irish Franciscan to that office, and appointed me Prefect of Discipline over the school.
Although those who remained constant to the Order after the great desertion stood firm, yet there was still a flavour remaining of the spirit in which they had been trained. The new Prior was from the old house of Lambspring, and an old missioner, and was not accepted with perfect cordiality, still less the two members from Downside. This spirit communicated itself to the school, which had too intimate relations with one or two Religious.
So no sooner had the new Prefect appeared, than there was chalked up on the walls, " No Hunt, No reform." I let the students have their little triumph for the day. But the next morning, after prayers, I let them know how surprised I was to find a college of boys with the manners of a pothouse. I observed that if one or two of them had chalked the walls in a style insulting to an entire stranger, the rest must have concurred, or they would have removed the disgrace fastened on the whole school.
" I will not be severe with you," I said, " without necessity : I will give you till the next recreation hour to get the walls cleaned of their disgrace.
If it is not done by then, I will stop all the school work until I find out the offenders. If I fail I shall conclude that the whole school is involved in the guilt, and shall punish by decimation."
At the next recreation the walls were quite clean.
Soon after, I expelled one of the older students and flogged a younger one, after which we became good friends and understood each other".
Today, at 4.02pm to be precise, two ancient enemy nations will do battle - on the field of Twickenham!
Wales will play England at Rugby and....far be it from me (a humble Englishman) to attempt any psychological gain for my country but I was put in mind of the trial of St Thomas More as portrayed in 'A Man for All Seasons'.
It is one of the great films about one of England's greatest men and a saint of the Church.
In the film, More is betrayed by his erstwhile assistant Richard Rich who has accepted the badge of the Red Dragon, signifying his post as Attorney General for Wales. You may view the scene here, it appears at around 3:50 but watch the whole clip, it's Paul Scofield at his best.
And St Thomas, picking up on this reward for treachery utters the immortal line: "For Wales Rich, for Wales?"
If Wales wins on the 25th I may live to regret this post. Until then...heh! heh!
Well we are under global attack are we not? We are, as Bishop Finn once said: "At war."
And the Daleks seem uniquely equipped and organised to achieve world domination conversion, even if a tad violently.
They could be just the sort of ally that the Vatican could use right now, after all, they have a good hierarchical structure (unlike some organisations I could mention). They have, at the top of the pyramid, a Dalek Emperor and, beneath him? her? - (they are a bit TV-ish, those Daleks), we have the Imperial Guard, then the four black elite (Cult of Skaro), the Supreme Dalek and so on.
Meet your new Bishop....
They could be the roaming modern Crusaders of Holy Mother Church, dispensing swift and certain justice wherever a Catholic Church is torched or a Christian hanged for their faith. Sorting out secularism and other 'isms' with impunity.
Their bodywork is impressive, metal plates surmounted by various "arms" that can screw, cut or shoot at the enemy.
I would like to see forty such "Knights" marching (if Daleks march) down Wood Green High Street on a Saturday afternoon, scattering the Jihad evangelists left right and left again.
And perhaps the Vatican could transport a group to the USA to help the beleaguered faithful there?
Provided they could get up the steps I think they would go down a storm in the Senate or House of Representatives.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden - beware! The Vatican Daleks are out to excommunicate, excommunicate!
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is outshining both his successor and our own Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, in defending natural marriage against the State. He, at least, appears to be publicly conversant in the issues that are at stake if marriage should be redefined by the State. Unlike our own Catholic Archbishop, he appears to be in combatant mood when it comes to defending natural marriage. More power to his elbow.
He knows what is at stake. Let us remind ourselves once more of what, exactly, is at stake. For 'gay marriage' is not fundamentally a movement by the State recognising the inequality and injustice experienced by the lesbian and homosexual community. If that needed to be addressed, it surely already has been. It is only this on surface level. 'Gay marriage' is a radical departure from traditional morality so great, so culturally explosive, so antithetical to societal expectations and norms, so contradictory to objective morality, that it can only be the movement of the State towards totalitarianism.
There was a time when I considered that the smoking ban that came into force in the United Kingdom under the previous Labour Government was primarily to do with smoking and public health. It has taken me time to realise that it was only to do with public health on surface level. It wasn't primarily about smoking being a danger to public health or even about the State performing a blanket ban on a public habit enjoyed by a minority of people and making it illegal in public places for the benefit of a perceived 'health-conscious' majority. It wasn't about health. It was about the State flexing its muscles over its own citizens. It was primarily about the State telling its own citizens, 'YOU CAN NO LONGER SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES'. It was about social control. And my, how we all rolled over to have our tummies tickled by the State. Not for us Brits to light up and stick two fingers up at the CCTV cameras. Not for us to tell train station attendants to kiss our behinds if we're going to put out our fags on this station when only fresh air surrounds us! If only! No, we do just as we are told!
Likewise, 'gay marriage' is not primarily about the State's recognition of the injustice perceived, this time, against a small minority of its citizens - namely homosexuals and lesbians, since grievances have already been addressed. That's what 'Civil Partnerships' were about, remember, even though at Magisterial level, at least, the Catholic Church condemns them as contrary to the natural law and the law of God. 'Gay marriage' is primarily about the State taking a human institution - marriage - and radically altering and changing in substance its meaning and nature. It means that whether those who defend natural marriage are religious in their view - or indeed not - the fact that this issue is being depicted as the Church Vs the State is merely a side-feature of the main event. The main event concerns the State's relationship with YOU and me, its citizens.
Welcome to your future, United Kingdom
It means that whatever YOU thought marriage was, YOU were wrong. Whoever YOU thought was able to define marriage, YOU were wrong. It is primarily to do with the State's desire to control every aspect of human life. It is now up to the State to decide what marriage IS and what marriage IS NOT. What YOU had thought marriage IS NOT now IS. And conversely, what you had thought marriage IS, it IS NOT. Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was not something which two men can undertake, whether YOU believed in God, or not.
Whatever religion may teach, until now, YOU thought marriage was something that takes place between a man and a woman, whether YOU believed in God, or not. The most human institution of all, marriage, is now believed by the State to be in the hands of the State. The question is, is it safe in the hands of the State? Is anything so fundamental and integral to the human person and to society safe in the hands of the State? The answer to these questions simply has to be: 'No'. The State has no business in this area of human life. By its very actions, the State is over-reaching its remit and its democratic mandate. Even the very fact that this is under discussion in the media should have bells ringing in the houses of all men and women in the United Kingdom, whether those bells are Church bells, or indeed not. Years of propaganda from the liberal media, Stonewall and its supporters in Parliament and the Press have paved the way for this moment by a process of incrementalism aimed at undermining and destabilising Britain's cultural and moral life subtly, until the 'revolution' could be won.
Gay marriage is not fundamentally about recognising the new rights and freedoms of the homosexual community in the United Kingdom. It is about an institution which is universally recognisable as the most human of all institutions, passing from the ownership of Almighty God and humanity itself, to an Almighty State. Be assured, also, that if marriage is redefined, then the new respectability conferred upon 'gay marriage' will soon result in any opposition to the Brave New World, even opposition to gay religious ceremonies taking place in Churches, being crushed, since the State now decides what marriage is - not the Church and not even the citizens of the United Kingdom.
'Gay marriage' is Orwellian in nature. The Equalities Minister, the Head of the 'Department for Equalities' is Orwellian. The idea that this department is interested in just and fair treatment for its citizens is laughable and ridiculous and the current situation, with Lynne Featherstone telling Churches not to 'polarise the debate' by opposing the Government's plans (in other words, by publicly disagreeing with the Government's plans) is straight out of 'Nineteen Eighty Four'. It is absurd. It is beyond parody. It is living satire.
How can a Government minister for a Department for Equality tell religious 'minority' groups (and the Head of the Established Church, HRH the Queen at that) that it basically doesn't matter what they say or what they believe, this 'gay marriage' proposal will go ahead regardless and that they should, basically, all shut up, including Her Majesty? By virtue of the position she holds as Head of 'Equalities', Lynne Featherstone should, by all accounts, resign, along with Trevor Phillips of the Human Rights and Equalities Commission, because it is blatantly obvious that neither she nor he are capable of being objective, impartial or even vaguely 'equal' in their treatment of the concerns of the homosexual lobby and the Churches - two different minorities with very competing views and interests.
The idea of a Government minister in any other department behaving in such an obviously partial manner towards one lobbyist or interest group or of that Minister demonstrating partisanship in such a public and high-handed manner would draw a barrage of criticism resulting perhaps in that minister's resignation or sacking. Why doesn't she just rename her ministerial role to: 'Minister for the Promotion of Homosexuality to the Detriment of Religious Folk and Others Who Aren't Quite Sure About It'?
Astonishingly, Ms Featherboaconstrictor then goes on to tell us that 'this is the will of the people', which will look even more ironic if she repeats such a statement in Holy Week. Remember, citizens of the United Kingdom, Big Brother knows best what is good for you and knows what you should believe, even if you don't quite believe it! Ms Featherstone has the temerity to suggest that this is the 'will of the people' without even asking what the people actually think. Well, we know that David Cameron is making 'gay marriage' a central issue of his Premiership because Lynne Featherstone has today told us so. However, while David Cameron may be committed to the pink cause now, now indeed, that he is in occupying Number 10 Downing Street, Mr Cameron was a little more coy on this subject in the months before he was elected to be PM. Take a look at how reticent Mr Cameron was to promise to a Gay Times journalist anything other than a free vote for the Conservative Party MPs and MEPs in voting on the proposal that he now presents to us as totally in keeping with Conservative tradition and with such evangelistic zeal.
Mr Cameron knew his own party would see that interview. With the Gay Times journalist he therefore found himself between a rock and a hard place, as he attempted to be 'all things to all men' but with none of the holiness of St Paul. Did you notice, also, the astonishing power and influence that the gay lobby, this time in the form of Martin Popplewell, has over even our Prime Ministers?
"Why," he sneers, "should we (speaking on behalf of all gays) vote for you if you won't vote for us?"
It does not enter into Mr Popplewell's thought processes that this could, you know, be an issue of conscience for Conservative MPs and MEPs and that to whip the party into line might cause, you know, bitter resentment and divisions in the party. For the militant gay community, it's all about them, you see, nobody else. A great question for Mr Popplewell from the hapless Mr Cameron could well have been - indeed should have been: 'Why are you convinced that when you represent about 2% of the entire population of the United Kingdom, I should treat your minority's agenda with greater and more urgent concern than those of the rest of the population at a time of deep economic hardship for the country?'
Still, there we have it. That's the power of the pink vote, seemingly! It is true to say that Mr Cameron did 'modernise' the Conservative Party, but it is also true to say he seems not to be a conviction politician, but just another conviction-less politician in an empty suit courting votes. Now, now indeed that he is in office, it is obvious that nothing short of a supervolcano exploding in St James's Park will stall his desire to abandon natural marriage and to do give way to Stonewall's 'conjugal rights', but is it really as popular as he thinks it is, or is it just the concern of a small and liberal elite? For example, this was not the central issue which won the election for the Conservative Party, yet not outright enough to escape Coalition government. It did not form a central part of Mr Cameron's electoral mandate, so why is he so committed to the 'equality cause' now? Anyone would have thought he was Tony Blair or something! So strange that, is it not, that despite the fact that Mr Blair became a Catholic, we can guess that were he to vote in such a bill, he would vote for Stonewall too. Principles and politicans - not a good mix.
'Equalities' Minsiter: Lynne Featherstone MP
But as Lord Carey points out to Lynne Featherboa, if it is really true that the British understanding of marriage has shifted so dramatically in this the early part of the 21st century, so much so that the vast majority of citizens desire that marriage itself be redefined, then let's give the British population an opportunity for the 'will of the people' to be made manifest through a national referendum. Will this happen? Will the 'will of the people' be requested by Parliament? Will it buggery! Excuse my french.
Just as the Abortion Act (1967) paved the way for personhood itself to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children, so too will the Same-Sex Marriage Bill of 2012 pave the way for marriage to be redefined, without a referendum, in the public consciousness and those of every future generation of children. Mr Cameron is playing with fire. He can expect to get his fingers burnt - if not in this life - then the next. No, what Lord Carey has suggested will not occur. There will be no referendum on this because Lynne and Dave just instinctively know what British citizens really want - and that's 'gay marriage'.
Such an exercise in democracy as a national referendum on the biggest change to English law for 800 years or more is the last thing - the last thing - the Govenrnment intend to do, because this is not just about marriage, but a cultural revolution echoing that of Chairman Mao of China, in which YOU and YOUR FUTURE CHILDREN are to be told by the State what you believe and think of marriage, not your conscience, not the Church, nor even the cultural prejudices of your own particular social milieu. All that will be swept away. This is about progressives dominating both the left and right of the political spectrum using the tools and frightening power of the State to compel the whole population of the United Kingdom to believe something which has always been held as objectively untrue, to be held as suddenly true - that marriage could be redefined by the State to be between parties other than one man and one woman. Ultimately, this is about the State telling you what to think, and, eventually, about banishing any voices which oppose the 'Brave New World', to the wilderness.
Do you really think that if the Same-Sex Marriage Bill is passed in the Year of Our Lord 2012, that spontaneous parties will erupt all over Great Britain, from Hackney to Heathrow, from Bournmouth to Bristol, from Glasgow to Glamorgan? I somehow doubt it. There will be some, and of course, Brighton will love it, but not everywhere, dear readers, as you know, is like Brighton. There will be pockets of celebrations in parts of the United Kingdom if this law is passed, but there will be a great many people who will be sitting at home watching TV thinking, 'Gay marriage, eh? Well I never. What has the country come to?' Of course, they'll be allowed to think that...for now...but Heaven help the first British child who stands up in front of the classroom and says, 'But Miss, I believe, and my mummy and daddy believe, that marriage is between men and women because that's how babies are made'. Heaven help that child and Heaven help that child's parents because in 21st century Britain, the State owns marriage and what YOU may or may not think about it.
