Death: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

From 'Dystopia' on the site of the Guild of Blessed Titus Brandsma

Our time on Earth is brief. Every day, week, month, year just seems to elapse quicker than did the last.  None of us knows the hour of our death, which is one reason why Catholics pray to Our Lady, that at the end of our sojourn in this life we may be granted a merciful judgement, having died in God's friendship, fortified by the Sacraments.

Catholics used to describe such an end as a 'good and happy death'.  In that sense, Catholics are keen on euthanasia - which means 'good death', because while we may require purification after death, our long term vision is nothing more or less than the Beatific Vision of God Himself. That's a good death.

A bad death is the one in which a person dies in a state of mortal sin, unrepentant. Those who die in such a state, according to the Church's teaching, have their state fixed in rejection of God and spend eternity eternally separated from Him in a place we know as Hell.

So, what would constitute an ugly death? Well, actually the ugly death is every death, since death is the worst possible thing anyone can imagine. It is the separation of the soul from the body. It is the end of man's time in this World - the only World to which we are accustomed. A man may, possibly, go through a life knowing few people, he can cut himself off from all social contact if he wills, but he knows the World, for it is all he has known. The other side of the veil, to man, is unknown, and it is the unknown that strikes terror and dread into the soul of man. The end of temporal existence is a horror.

And even God, Himself, not only knows this by virtue of his omniscience, but because the second Person of the Trinity experienced it when He became Man and 'suffered death and was buried'. God, in Jesus Christ, knows the terrible reality of facing death in all its reality. Few, if anyone, would maintain that death is a good thing. Objectively, death is a bad thing - even an evil - despite the fact that it is the just penalty incurred by man in the aftermath of the Fall.

So, if death, it is universally agreed, is a 'bad thing', then why would anyone advocate either suicide or encourage or abett the death of themselves or another?  If death, terrible as it is, is an accepted part of human experience, then surely we human beings would desire that death be postponed or that life be honoured or cherished as long as it is possible. Why should anyone desire to hasten death, if it is the least attractive of all human experiences?

Euthanasia enthusiasts, or 'assisted dying' advocates argue that because human suffering, illness, and pain are so horrendous, that a person should be able to choose death over life with an incurable or debilitating disease or illness, or a condition that leads a person to a point at which their life is 'no longer worth living' or a life which is no longer worthy of being called a human life, pointing at the perceived loss of dignity that many conditions bring about.

Yet, hitherto the 21st century, human societies, largely, have held that while sickness, illness, pain, dementia, disability and the range of sufferings which afflict the human race are evils, the worst of all evils is death itself.  The idea that the best possible solution to weakness, sickness, illness, disease, suffering and the loss of perceived dignity or purpose, or the ability to be 'productive', or some human imperfection is death has historically been anaethama to the West. The only way in which death has been prescribed as a solution to humanity's ills has been as punishment for a terrible crime. This is true - that is - until Germany became the first country to legalise voluntary euthanasia under the rule of one Adolf Hitler. Aside from this, no other culture or community that has embraced suicide as integral to its philosophy has been widely condemned as the result of an either religiously motivated or pathologically-motivated cult.

So, why should it be considered that the movement in the United Kingdom advocating 'assisted suicide' as the answer to human suffering is any different to the suicide cults which have preceded it, or the voluntary euthanasia programme of Nazi Germany, that paved the way for a less voluntary euthanasia programme of which the World recoils in horror?

The argument proposed in favour of assisted suicide, by such public figures as Baroness Warnock, Lord Falconer and a growing range of celebrities including Terry Pratchett, isthat human beings have the 'right to die'. And who in their 'right mind' could disagree with that? If there is most peole agree with it is the notion that human beings are endowed with certain 'rights'. Some would suggest that these rights come from a Creator, while others would suggest some other source - for example - a benevolent and wise State.  And who, indeed, could possibly argue against the 'right to die'? The very phrase the 'right to die' has become a cry for freedom and emancipation from a State that refuses its citizens autonomy over its own personal property - our lives.

Yet, no Churchman, no serious Churchman could argue against the 'right to die', since it is a right that comes to us merely be being born into this World. What someone could question, however, is whether anyone has the right to choose when they die.

Despite the fact that death is the most feared of human experiences, precisely because it represents an unknown state as the end of existence as we know it, perversely is the very reason why advertising it as a 'choice' can be made so appealing.  Since because the hour and manner of our death, with the suffering that precedes it, is so frightening, and because it is something over which we humans have no control, if we can at least control one aspect of death - the timing - then it provides us with an illusion of safety, security and controlthat we do not have if we allow it to occur naturally.

And, futher, if we can convince ourselves that the manner and hour of our death are matters of our own choosing - that it can be controlled - then such a 'service' as 'assisted suicide' can even be sold to us, as it has been, most notably in Switzerland at its notorious Dignitas clinics. And being 'sold' it is, under the advertisement 'dignity in dying', a phrase to which we shall return later. But let us first consider where we are.

In order for us to be convinced that we can procure an 'assisted suicide' in good conscience, because such a service we consider our 'right', then we first have to believe that the timing of our own death is our choice. We have, too, to be convinced that our life is our possession. 'It's my life' to do with 'what I choose' is the oft heard phrase.

Catholic theology does not prescribe that as human beings we have no autonomy over our actions or lives. Society is still impressed, for example, by those who risk their lives to safe others. To do such a thing is considered still to be heroic - to show selfless love in risking or laying down your life for another. If a man pushes another man out of the way of a bus and himself is killed then he has sacrificed his life for that of another in order to defend a human life. Similarly, Christ said 'nobody takes my life away from me,' but that 'I lay it down of my own free will'. Human beings have autonomy over their affairs by virtue of our free will. So, we see, then, that the Church has no objection to the idea that we are in possession of our own lives.

But if we are to say that ownership of human life belongs to us as individuals, then we must ask the question: to whom does this life belong after death? It may be 'my life' now, but is it 'my life' after the moment of 'my death', since I no longer exist in the body? Like all human possessions, life, whether you believe in God, or not, is surely only on loan. The Catholic Church posits that, like all human possessions, whether it be an antique, a family heirloom, a favourite picture or a book, life too belongs to a person until death. Like any other possession, ownership of life must pass from the current owner onto another who is in receipt of it.

Whatever way you look at it, we can say 'It's my life' while we are living, but the claim loses all sense and meaning when we are dead since we can no longer claim ownership of even the clothes we are wearing, or the clock on the wall that tells of the time of our death. The clock will remain perhaps far long after we have been there. Perhaps the clock will tell the right time for many of its owners until the End of Time itself, but we? We shall have long gone. Even by objective standards, anyone would think that the clock is more important than a human life since it may well last and be treasured on earth for longer - far longer - than not just the person who owned it, but the memory of a person himself in the hearts of men.

The clock may be passed onto a relative or a third party in this World, but a human life can be passed onto nobody in this World. So, after death, if we can no longer say, 'It's my life to do with as I will', then to whom does ownership of this human life pass? The Catholic Church would say: to the God who made it - to the God who redeemed it - to the God who gave that individual the free will to either cherish it and honour it, or, conversely to dishonour it and to destroy it.

Further, the claim that 'it is my life to do with as I will' is given greater force and gravity by a sober assessment of the statement, since the possibility exists that the one who makes the claim does so knowing that something within himself is immortal. For if I say, 'It is my body, it is my life to do with as I will' and do not believe that something within me is immortal then I appear as a fool, since those around me know full well that while my life is my possession, the lease expires upon my death. It only makes logical sense if I say it in the knowledge that something within me belongs to me, is indeed mine, forever and that wherever it is that I go after death, I will take that 'I', that 'my' with me to that place. In order that 'its my life' make sense I have to believe I am immortal in some sense or that something within me is infinite, despite the fact that my bodily existence is finite. Therefore, the statement that it is 'my life, my body' only makes logical sense if I believe that it is also 'my immortal soul'. Now, you see the distinction, because while a life belongs to a man in this World and all life goes out of a man upon death and returns to his Creator, the Author of Life, the soul too belongs to a man, a soul which either lives forever happily with God in eternity after a period of purgation, or does not.

So, we see now that the claim to assisted suicide upon the grounds that 'its my life' is not so simple as it first appears, when we assume that we can claim it, in some instrinsic sense, forever, and that it is only when we do so that our bold claim makes sound sense. Yet, it is precisely at this point that our argument that we can procure this service of 'assisted suicide' falls down, since if I have a soul, a soul that lives forever, then I would be wise to do what I can to preserve my soul and place my death trustfully in the hands of my Creator, for He has entrusted this gift of life to me for His service and glory. For me to destroy that which He has made, even my own self, who I may either love or loathe, is to destroy that great gift of life which He gave me. Even were we not to have the Ten Commandments which help us very much in this matter - this decision of life and death - then it would be wise for me to pray fervently for guidance in this very important matter, before I either kill myself, or freely allow another party to do it for me, since if I live forever in the state in which I have died, then that decision will have serious consequences for me when I approach the Seat of Judgment which is nothing other than my Conscience in the light of God Himself.

Now, we live in a society which is vastly more atheistic and secular in belief than were previous generations and, as a Catholic, all I can say is that, given what the Church teaches about both suicide and murder as grave dangers to the immortal souls of those who commit them, the best that we can say of those Governments, parts of Governments, celebrities and children's books authors currently considering or promoting the idea of  'assisted suicide' as a potential answer to a host of modern day problems, economic problems, as well as social and societal ills, is that they have not thought them through very well. And, all I have discussed, so far, is the awful reality of death that we must all undergo, for 'after death, comes judgment'. From what I hear of the Church's mystics, even purgatory is a fate worse than physical pain and incurable terminal disease in this life.

We have not yet even considered the huge social ramifications involved in the 'assisted suicide' debate. That will have to be dealt with in the next post. Suffice to say, however, that the trends emerging in the United Kingdom, as well as other countries signalling an interest in assisted suicide, is that both the State and the Media consider that while our right to life is arbitrary and at the mercy of doctors, nurses, mothers and fathers, our 'right to die' could be deemed, in the future, absolutely guaranteed. It was guarateed already, of course, its just the timing that is so crucial.

Ripe and Ready for the Fray

Tomorrow I have a job interview in Pittsburgh! It's my first sign of success on the career front since being hired last July, and suffice it to say the new opportunity looks much better than my current position.

Preparing for this interview has meant a concomitant drop in movie-watching (and blogging) time. I watched Midnight Cowboy not long ago and will review it as soon as I have time and mental energy. Until then, keep on keeping on. I'm sure I will gloat if things go according to plan.

Does Christ really want an imbalanced Church?

I mean, even the most liberal of liberal Catholics must see that all is not fair and equal.
On the one hand we have the Holy Father issuing a Motu Proprio (now five years ago) stating quite clearly the grounds for provision of the Latin Mass (TLM) and, indeed, distinguishing the Latin Mass as being an "Extraordinary" form of the Mass and the Novus Ordo version as being an "Ordinary" form.

Two versions of Mass, both to be made available at the request of the laity.

Could you imagine, for one instant, the howls of anger and dismay if the current situation was reversed and their Lordships issued a notice to the effect that the OF Mass would only be available at one parish in one hundred but that the EF Mass would be available at every parish?

I can imagine it. What is more, I pray daily for it to happen as it surely will but, perhaps, not in my lifetime.

There are, of course, solutions to the problem.

I shall ignore the one regarding all of the Bishops having a change of conscience overnight and then welcoming their priest onto training courses to enable them to celebrate the Latin Mass.

There is another solution. One that would instantly obliterate carping traditional Catholics such as me.

Balance - one in twenty is not rocket science!

And that is, to allow one parish in every twenty to become an EF Mass parish.
One where Holy Mass would be offered on a Sunday, not at 4pm or at 7.30pm but at 8am and 10.30am - times that suit families and those of us who just wish to attend at a normal hour.

Is that asking too much? Is it being grossly greedy and invasive?

It would mean, for example, that the Archdiocese of Westminster would have a provision of around ten Latin Masses on a Sunday as opposed to the current three to four.

My own Diocese of Menevia would move from one Sunday EF Mass to two (I cannot verify the number of parish churches as the website is not working, but believe that I am close to the correct number).

So, in an area covering something like 500 square miles, there would be two parishes offering a Latin Mass, EF version each Sunday (hopefully not adjacent parishes).

That seems to me to be very fair and equable, overly modest, even.

But, it would make a great many people wish that they were capable of turning triple somersaults and leaping for joy, in fact, they would become quite unbalanced.

I think that the liberal lobby and even Clifford Longley and Ms Pepinster might vote for that strategy.

Peace-Seeking Missles

Anything Bush could do, Obama can do with greater impunity. When Bush and Blair launched wars they were evil unjust wars, but when Obama launches wars, its the spreading of peace around the globe. They're peace-seeking missiles he uses on Pakistan. Very sophisticated. Well, it is when the liberal media believe that Obama should always be naked from the waist down, lest the Earth be cast into perpetual darkness. War is peace now.

Now this really is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

Photo: http://sthughofcluny.org/category/masses 

How to get your video banned from YouTube...

It's easy.

Just criticise gay marriage or President Obama.

Preferably both.

That should secure it.

Google owns YouTube and runs Blogger.

Just thought I'd warn you in case you were unaware.

Fr Aidan Nichols Coming to Brighton

Fr Aidan Nichols is coming to Brighton to speak at St Mary Magdalen Church as part of the series of lectures hosted by St Mary Magdalen Church, Brighton, in the year of 150th Anniversary of its opening.

Fr Nichols has a brilliant mind, is a profoundly gifted theologian and will be speaking on the future of the Church in England on Thursday evening at 7.30pm.

Interesting Video on Same-Sex Marriage in the US

An interesting video this, one that I have been alerted to by a reader. It covers the story of same-sex marriage in the US, covering such issues as the education of children on homosexuality (regardless of what parents would wish their children to know) and the silencing and imprisonment of one Massachussets man for questioning the status quo. It has interviews with men and women who have led the gay lifestyle only to reject it and find love with someone of the opposite sex and it highlights the grave threat to religious liberty which is already apparent in the US in those states which have accepted same-sex marriage. Confirmation, that as the Bee Gees sang, for the US, 'the lights all went down in Massachussets...'

RIP Robin Gibb. RIP religious freedom and the parental moral education of their biological children.

Prime Minister: 'Abortion is Murder for the Purpose of Population Control'

Not the words of our Prime Minister, of course, but those of the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Finally, a politician who tells the truth.

"Just a Minute" the radio panel show that used to be for all the family

Driving back from the East of England on Monday evening I listened to Radio Four's "Just a Minute" show, hosted by Nicholas Parsons.
For those unfamiliar with the programme, the panel of four guests are given a topic to speak about for one minute without deviation, hesitation or digression. So far so good. It is normally quite entertaining (a lecture on the development of scart plugs would be entertaining if you were driving back from Peterborough) and it normally carries a few slightly risque asides that can be amusing.

But Monday night's panel included one, Julian Clary, a man who professes to be a homosexual and appears on many shows dressed up as a woman (it is about here that I begin to get confused by the whole LGBT thing).

Real men don't discuss such things...do they?

                                                 
OK.........not my cup of Lapsang but I am, as the few readers of this blog know, a very mild and even tempered chap......hmm....

Sadly, Clary went several steps beyond the acceptable.
He began by describing either a real or an imaginary night out with a male friend.
 I will leave it there, please believe me it was not the sort of stuff you would wish for your mother to hear, or your children for that matter and I am not so sure I would wish for the family dog to hear it.

I am not going to quote what he went on to say (you can listen to it online I believe) but he did go on to speak in salacious and obscene double entendres, referring to fairly fundamental parts of the human anatomy.

Not only was this not nice, it was dirty and shabby.

I cannot imagine a heterosexual person speaking in such a fashion; if they did they would probably not be invited back.
Homosexuals do seem to delight in 'kiss and tell' tales and they do love the intimate detail. Whether it is an innate desire to shock or a genuine perverted sense of what is right I do not know.
But I have experienced it many, many times in my working life and, the sad thing is that it is all so unnecessary.

So, from now on, "Just a Minute" will be known as the show that DOES allow deviation, perversion and pure, unadulterated filth.

Mears and Brighton and Hove City Council: A Relationship 'Molded' by Public Money

From The Eye of a Needle

I've been sent this quite astonishing video by a reader which is worthy of attention and dissemination. You could be forgiven for thinking that maybe this council accommodation could do with some work. Maybe a spot of restoration and the removal of black mold that caused the children living in this accommodation to develop respiratory problems? Well, you'd be right, but the really astonishing thing about this video is not just the appalling conditions of the accommodation but that it was taken by the mother of a woman with 4 children after Mears Group plc had completed their 'work' on the council property.

The family, a mother with her four children in this two bedroom accommodation were moved out of the Hangleton property after repeated complaints by the family and extended family were made to the Council. To its great credit, The Argus newspaper also covered the story of the squalour of the property and their coverage of the shocking conditions of the accommodation may even have assisted the Council's response to the plight of the family.

The family were moved out of the property and placed in temporary accommodation elsewhere. They have expressed, already, the problems of having four children in a two room property, but were prepared to revisit the accommodation to view it after the Mears maintenance workers had done their work in renovating the property.

In the presence of a Council housing manager and a Mears surveyor, the family were shown the accommodation after the work had been done on it. Having watched the video and seen other pictures of the property, my personal assessment is that the black mold that caused respiratory problems to both adults and children in the property requires some more work. Perhaps Mears Group workers and council housing reps can see something we cannot. They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is fine, of course, when you're not the one passing through the eye of a needle.

It suffices to say that this shocking video of the neglect of the Mears company of Council property - a neglect for which Mears are in receipt of around £2million of public money every month - might be a source of embarrassment for both the company themselves and the Council which reward them so handsomely for their 'services'. Maybe Mears, a company which, as we know, was floated on the stock exchange in 2005, don't believe tenants - children and adults - are 'worthy' of accommodation better than this. Maybe they are banking on the rest of the public in Brighton, in Hove and beyond to agree with them.

Perhaps they are banking on everyone in Brighton and others beyond being as heartless as they are. Of course, the ones doing the real banking are the shareholders. I wonder what they would make of this video? Companies which lose reputations have been known to lose some shareholders. Wouldn't it be a shame if Mears lost some of theirs? But hey, that's the world of 'risk' capital and surely, surely someone at Mears Group must know that by leaving residents in Brighton and Hove in such squalour there would always come with it a measure of risk that they might one day get found out.

Gradually, slowly, I hope and I pray that more and more people wi#ll come forward to expose the risks Mears have taken not just with their own reputation as a company in receipt of such vast amounts of public money, but also with the health, safety and well being of adults and children in Brighton...and, most likely, beyond.

You might think that this article couldn't get any more absurd. But you'd be wrong. The Council housing manager, Mr Graham Page, has told the mother of four children that this is the property that they should 'make arrangements to return to' after she has viewed it on the 14th of May and that he would be 'dropping the keys back to her on Wednesday'. Not surprisingly, the mother and her children remain in temporary housing and at this time and, as things stand, refuse to return to the property. Can you blame her? 

Ah, but the plight of this woman and her children isn't really the concern of our elected representatives, is it? I mean, what we need is 'gay marriage', isn't it? That's what concerns most people. People don't mind living in squalor as long as they know a man can have his sexual relationship with another man blessed by the State and have it raised to the status of marriage...its knowing that that makes living in a Council house maintained by a group of local overpaid cowboys sweet and palatable. The vast majority of the poor in this country are not asking for 'equality'. No. What the poor ask for is to be treated with dignity. The demands of the gay lobby and the often silent cries of the poor are, as you will appreciate, worlds apart...

More Gay Marriage Balls

Red Ed and Red Ken playing snooker at a youth club. No, really...

Hard as it may be to believe, I do tire of writing about 'gay marriage' and if you think I'm obsessed with it, then at least be assured that I'm not half as obsessed with it as are our beloved elected politicians who seem to discuss it tirelessly.

Today, Ed Balls has come out in favour of it and into the bargain outed his anonymous gay uncle. Yet, you don't have to be an intellectual rigorist to spot some pretty glaring inconsistencies in Ed's reasoning.

Ed maintains that he 'believes' that his uncle, who never got the chance to have a Civil Partnership with his gay lover, because he died, would have wanted to be married to the chap with whom he shared his life. How well did Ed know this uncle? We're not sure, but the fact that Ed says he 'believes' he would have wanted this, even though he clearly doesn't know for sure, means we'll never know whether the gay uncle would have wanted a gay marriage or, indeed, not.

Then, to make his reasoning even more ridiculous, he says that he wants the name of the uncle to be anonymous in order to respect his privacy. This would suggest that, in some way, either the uncle or others in the family would not want this fact over his sexuality to be revealed.

So, while playing to the gay gallery, Ed makes the fatal mistake of refusing to name the individual because either the uncle himself or the family would rather the individual's sexuality wasn't made public. The gay community, of course, would hate that, because it would suggest that there is some kind of stigma or shame involved in being a homosexual. He's wheeled out his gay uncle but has decided to keep uncle in the closet. Apparently, Ed makes it plain that all the family were just fine about the man's sexuality, but at the same time, wants his sexuality to be private. Yet, we've been led to believe, that homosexuality is a) as natural as water flowing from Buxton springs, b) something to be celebrated and publicly so, and c) so worthy of public celebration, status and expression that marriage should itself be redefined, in order to incorporate the love that dare not keep quiet for a moment, on the statute book to the extent that bits about the consumation of marriage in heterosexual marriages must be removed from English law.

Ed goes on to say:

“As someone who is married myself, I think people who want to get married should be able to get married.” 

Remember readers that Ed Balls is married to a woman. I'm sure Ed would agree that if Ed was married to a man, life wouldn't be the same as it is being married to his missus. What he seems unaware of is the fact that it is because his spouse is a woman that he was able to get married and that in no way was the fact that he wanted to marry a woman an act of heartless discrimination against gays which went in his favour because he's straight. He was able to marry a woman because that is what marriage is - the union of a man and a woman - a union from which the natural fruit of children are born, and within which they are nurtured, raised and educated by their biological parents.

There are a lot of things people want to do which people cannot do by law because it runs contrary to the good of society - the common good. Most people of sound mind would accept that I should not sleep with Ed Balls or indeed his wife because even if I considered myself a younger, more attractive model than Ed or his wife and that I believed he or she wanted me to sleep with him or her, that my doing so wouldn't really be fair on Ed, or his wife or his family. That's called adultery and even though lots of people do it and don't go to jail for doing so, that doesn't actually foster the common good. When Ed was in power as Education Secretary, I believe there were times when I wanted to throttle the power-frenzied bully of Catholic schools. I wanted to throttle him, but had I done so, it would not have been in the common good. Well, that's what I am called to believe...

Just wanting something is not enough reason to redefine a human institution. There are lots of gay chaps out there who accept the chalice of not getting married and having children because in their own judgement as well as that of the Church and hitherto the State, marriage is a human institution which predates both Church and State - it is a convenant that requires only two people - one man and one woman. And who knows, while Ed 'believes' his uncle would have been swanning down the aisle with another man at the drop of the hat, perhaps he was someone who would rather keep his private 'affairs' to himself. 

And, just to ensure that Ed manages to please the homosexual lobby and offend the Churches at the same time, as is fashionable in today's society, he completes his mission by adding:

“I also believe that somebody who is religious and a churchgoer, if the church community wants it in that church, I think people should be able to get married in church too…I really hope the Government will look at that proposal as well. This is something whose time has come.” 

How very thoughtful of you, Ed! Isn't the State just so kind to the Church!?

"That's right all you Priests and Bishops out there! We don't want to leave you out of this same-sex marriage lark. We're going to give you the right to have them in your churches all across the country! All hail the glorious State! How benevolent and wise it is! Oh happy day! The day the State gives Churches that prized right to do what the State wants them to do! Oh, cry freedom! At first we'll permit that you perform these ceremonies if you choose and then, when you do, we can see how happy the State has made gay chaps who disagree with their own Church's teaching up and down the country and grant it to every church! Yes, even those ones that hitherto did not think it was their cup of tea!"

Note how Ed cleverly addresses individuals or 'communities' rather than churches or the Catholic Church. So, you know, as long as an individual wants to get married in a church that's something that the State can allow. Quite how the Church that is approached for a 'gay ceremony' feels about it, Ed seems a little more reluctant to discuss. It's quite revealing about the level of psychological warfare that is being employed by our vanguard of elite totalitairan gangsters. Remember, British people, that there really is no Church as such in this man's thinking. The relationship which Ed considers most important to you isn't your relationship with your Church or even your Lord and God, nor perhaps even your 'partner'. The relationship that most concerns Ed is your relationship with the ever-expanding, over-arching and inglorious State. That is essentially what the 'gay marriage' debate is really about. It is about who gets to define what. Because for some reason, I doubt that after 'gay marriage' becomes law, it will be tolerated if you don't buy the Party line. That's how Nick Clegg treats his own Liberal Democrat MPs. That's how Nick Clegg and David Cameron and Ed Balls (It's a cross party whip this) wishes the British public to be treated as well - as people whose voices and opinions matter not a jot. That's the tyranny of liberalism for you. If that's how Clegg treats people in power - how on earth does he wish to treat people without it!

In order to support the notion of 'equal marriage' in terms of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage, chaps like Ed really give the impression that if he were married to a man and had 'consumated his relationshp' with a man, that it would be equal or the same as being married to a woman and making love to that woman - namely - his wife. That's what 'equal marriage' is, isn't it? That's what the dogma of the liberal agenda would suggest. It posits that same-sex marriage is the same as natural marriage even when the biological reality suggests something so different that the bit about consumating the relationship has to be removed from English law.

Aside from being perhaps the biggest threat to freedom of belief, religion and conscience in recent history, 'gay marriage' is also the greatest insult ever thrown at woman in the history of the United Kingdom. The other insult that seems to get thrown around is to homosexuals themselves because, apparently, according to David Cameron, gay marriage would bring stablilty to relationships and society, a statement which sounds a little homophobic to me. I mean, is he saying that there are loads of homosexuals and lesbians out there involved in unstable, destructive relationships or something and that only marriage can 'cure' them? Tsk tsk. Sounds like a 'bigot' to me...

What is Paganism?

I've been in contact with a media company who invited me to talk about paganism and whether it should be taught in schools in RE.

Obviously, the main thrust of what I said was that it should not, since if it is to be taught the pagan-lite elements such as belief in the power of crystals and horoscopes, lessons would at some point have to dabble in the world of the occult and the 'spirit world'. Or, at least, it would be hard to teach what some pagans might believe about stuff like horoscopes if you didn't also include the stuff the some pagans might believe about trying to contacting the dead.

If paganism were a religion to be taught alongside Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism and other significant religions, then exactly what would be taught?  The problem of course is that paganism would mean something different depending on which pagan you happened to be talking to. For one it would mean visiting Stonehenge at the summer solstice, for another it might just be some kind of meditation, for another casting a spell, for another reading someone's palm and for another, looking at horoscopes to see what the stars have planned for you.

Paganism in the 21st century in Britain doesn't mean what it meant in pre-Christian Britain, but what does it mean. Should it be taught in schools? Well, what is a Catholic Christian meant to say? No, it shouldn't. Already, children leave schools with little knowledge of what Christians believe. Teaching paganism is just another sign that the Christian content of an RE curriculum would be diluted even more. I'm sure most pagans are 'nice people'. I'm sure most British people are pagans because as Chesterton said, 'When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything'. The question is do we want to build a society in which children believe in anything - literally anything - even the mystical or fantastical world of sorcery, but with little to no knowledge of the Gospels? And, of course, it has to be said that teaching children about paganism does run a risk that children could develop an unhealthy obsession with the occult. Most sensible people in the UK believe that the world of the occult is a door that one could open if one wanted, but that it isn't very wise to open that door. Most people know someone who has known someone who has used a ouija board and regretted it. Is satanism a 'real religion' that could be taught as part of the paganism module for those pagan who actually go in for it? I mean, where does such a venture start and end? You could teach satanism side by side with Christianity but from what I know of education, children's behaviour in schools is bad enough already...

It's an interesting question, I think, how do you teach paganism when it means something different to every pagan? As far as I know there is no pagan pope, though, there may be a lecturer at a Catholic university somewhere who could apply for the position were it to be created.

Since when did a priest die for the OF Mass?

I appreciate that, today, on a daily basis, priests and their flock members are being assassinated, murdered and persecuted.

But these crimes are carried out almost entirely by Muslim fanatics who abhor anything Christian.

They are dying for their faith, not for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

Back in the 16^th and 17^th centuries in Great Britain, things were different.

                 

                       Photo: English Martyrs Blog

Again, priests were being hanged, drawn and quartered for their faith but, in addition, they were overwhelmingly dying because of their adherence to the Latin Mass.

It was the Mass that was the focal point for their sufferings.

So much so that every priest that set foot on the scaffold was, in essence, ascending to the altar and Calvarywas about to be replayed again in a bloody fashion.

Why was this? 

Because, of course, the Latin Mass is the most complete liturgical devotion of the Catholic Faith.

It incorporates all the essentials necessary for our belief to grow and for our soul to be imbued with grace; it contains penitence, repentance, forgiveness, elements of the life of Christ and, finally, the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on our behalf and then His resurrection from the dead.

It is, in short, a Mass worth dying for.

Today, May 29^th is the feastday of Blessed Richard Thirkell or Thirkeld. He was a priest in the North of England who, after being ordained exclaimed:

“God alone knows how great a gift this is that hath been conferred on me this day”

And from an extract on this saint……

 Holy Mass was his constant thought, and it produced in his soul such daily increase of Divine love and heavenly courage that he desired nothing more than, in return for what Christ had done for him, to shed also his blood in Christ and for Christ.

For eight whole years his prayers were that he might one day lay down his life for his faith, and this was at length granted him.

He was apprehended and tried at York. He appeared at the bar a venerable old man in his priest’s cassock, and acknowledged that he was a priest and had performed priestly functions.

He was found guilty and spent the night instructing the criminals and preparing them for death.

On entering the court the next morning he publicly blessed four Catholic prisoners there present, and a brave old woman who knelt to receive it defended his actions by saying that as a minister of Christ he had the power to bless in His name.

He received the sentence of death with great joy, and so finished his course, York, May 29, 1583.

Blessed Richard – Ora pro nobis

Bl Richard Thirkell’s address to his fellow prisoners

"If the judges and commissioners have seized unjustly your goods, Christ your King will grant you to receive in this world a hundred-fold for every farthing you have lost, and in the world to come eternal life and bliss that shall never know an end. If wicked gaolers use force and cruelty, continually annoy and torment, frequently examine and persecute you, let not all these things cause you the least trouble of mind or make you remiss in the divine service. You will see that Christ will visit you the more quickly, that He will give you greater consolations day by day, and will make His throne in your hearts with the more frequency and the more pleasure. Therefore be of good cheer, beloved, clap with your hands, yea, let every member of your bodies exult with joy, in that you have a cause so noble, Christ for your Captain, the Holy Ghost for your Comforter, and for your advocates and defenders the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Angels, the Holy Apostles, the Martyrs, the Confessors, the Virgins, the blood of your fathers so freshly spilt which cries aloud to Heaven to obtain for you perseverance to the end."

Go for Broke!

Happy Memorial Day! I had a busy holiday but managed to squeeze in a viewing of Go for Broke! (1951), an obscure but interesting war film. Robert Pirosh, fresh off screenwriting chores on Battleground, tells the story of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, a Japanese-American unit serving in World War II. Not a groundbreaking movie, it's mostly worth checking out for the subject.

Lieutenant Michael Grayson (Van Johnson) is initially dismissed when he's assigned to the 442nd Regiment. Grayson shares common prejudices about Japanese-Americans and initially treats them roughly; he also nurses a grudge about not being assigned to his National Guard unit. But Grayson grows to love his "Buddha-heads," bonding through combat in Italy and France, and defending them against slurs from other soldiers. After Grayson is reassigned, the 442nd is charged to rescue the "Lost Battalion" surrounded by Germans at Vosges.

Go for Broke! is heavy on the war movie cliches, from its tolerance arc to the goofy antics of its soldiers: a silly subplot involves Tommy's (Henry Nakamura) friendship with an Italian pig. But its central story is undeniably compelling. Just six years removed from WWII, we get a slew of interesting, likeable Asian characters, many refugees from internment camps, who nonetheless side with their country. Concededly most are defined in broad strokes (tough guy, egg head, musician), and the racism they encountered is heavily downplayed. All the same, it's pleasing to see them integrated into a "unit picture" that credits their heroism. Writer-director Pirosh provides the gritty camraderie and understated battle scenes that served him well in Battleground, resulting in a satisfying experience.

Van Johnson gives a competent performance but his nisei co-stars steal the show. Most are veterans of the real 442nd, and their natural performances are likeable without being cutesy. Henry Nakamura (Westward the Women) plays a soldier eager to get revenge on the "Japs" who killed his family at Pearl Harbor. Other standouts include Harry Hamada as an amiable hula musician and Lane Nakano's surly tough. Don Haggerty (Act of Violence) has a small bit as a bigoted Texan.

Go for Broke! won't win a lot of originality points. As a tribute to unsung heroes though, it's certainly commendable.

Cabinet Culture

There is much talk of today's politicians being 'out of touch' with your average Brit.

It seems to have been said of every government that I can recall, however, and the gulf between 'the people' and 'the people in charge' seems to widen as time goes on. It seems to be a general trend across Europe, too.

There is a palpable sense in which the issues that concern the Prime Minister and his deputy arrive somewhere near the bottom of the 'to do' list scribbled at the back of the minds of most in the UK. Some decisions of course, are on the 'not to do' list for a sizeable proportion of UK citizens. The 'us and them' feeling that we have about our politicians won't have been helped by the publication of the Cabinet's incomes which comes to a grand total of about £70 million a year. For instance, as the cuts deepen and the State abandons the poor, disabled and sick and throw them back to the Church that always loved them - at a time in history when the Church in the UK doesn't have much actual cash - hand-wringing politicians who by most measurements are millionnaires aren't going to get a fantastic reception from your average joe.

When Cameron, Clegg and Osbourne tell us that they've got to make some terribly 'difficult decisions' and that 'we're all going to have to hunker down over this recession and tighten our purse strings' people could rightly think, 'Yes, I'll have to do that, but given that you're actually a millionnaire, so I'm not sure you'll really have to change much about your spending patterns.' Of course, it is terribly vulgar to operate a 'class war' against the Cabinet and we shouldn't give way to actually hating our politicians because of their vast wealth. It does mean, however, that when politicans tell us we're all going to have to 'dig deep for victory' that British people will know that while most Brits are digging something akin to a financial grave, our politicians will still be digging for diamonds and gold and finding plenty of it. Well, they won't find much gold actually, because Gordon Brown sold it. If they even cared to look, they wouldn't find the pensions Brits lost in the economic crash either.

And personally, I wouldn't mind that much if our politicans were really loaded and a significant proportion of UK citizens remained fairly skint but for the fact that both Clegg and Cameron and most of the Cabinet keep banging on about equality all the time. It's 'equality this' and 'equality that'. But how can these people talk of 'equality' when a significant portion of Brits are eeking out their existence in the value section of Asda on their way back to their two bed flat on a housing estate trying to feed four children, but the politicans themselves go home to a luxurious dwelling and order a delivery of the finest Rothschild wine available. Equality - sounds great, please may I have some? Inequality has been with us for a very long time and we've been promised it is here to stay but even if they cared to, how would our politicans - our elite - even begin to understand what life is like for people living outside of the realm of the rich and famous.

Perhaps it is not an award or contract bestowed by the British Government, but if you want to know how absurd things are in Britain today then you just have to look at who is sponsoring the paralympics in London this year. It's not Coca Cola, or Lucozade. It's Atos Healthcare - the American firm who were awarded the contract by the Labour Government to get long term sick, disabled and ill people off benefit and into work by methods which have been generally condemned as a little dubious. A great number of disabled people despise this company, yet in a bizarre PR move, Atos are sponsoring the Paralympics. The contract awarded to the company to get disabled people digging for victory is worth £100 million a year.

Blair made equality his mantra but his love for equality didn't stop him raking in astonishing amounts of money working for rapaciously capitalist companies after his destructive time in power. Nor did it stop him sending his kids to the best and most expensive schools while year after year, while State schools continue to churn out the highest proportion of illiterate and innumerate children in recent memory. Ah, but equality doesn't really mean what it used to mean. Proper socialists, mislead as they are, thought of inequality as an economic issue. Today's politicians believe that equality is a sexual issue or a gender issue because if equality were an economic issue then even Tony Blair may feel a little embarrassed by the fact that he is swimming in money. Do they really think that the electorate are so stupid or that we are so driven by our passions that we'll be happy not to be able to afford our gas bills because we'll be able to marry someone of the same-sex and have our unions blessed by the State and raised to the status of marriage?

Pro-Life Dylan

Cardinal Raymond Burke on the Eucharist

I was, sadly, unable to see or hear Cardinal Raymond Burke in the flesh today, but I am heartened to hear that this wonderful Cardinal has a new book out called Divine Love Made Flesh.

Read more at Life Site News about his new publication.

Christians Wake Up!

And fight the New World Order! Wear a Crucifix everywhere you go!

Like some readers I find Alex Jones a bit much. I mean can you imagine going for a pint with him. Hectic or what!

"You know what, Larry, make mine a Kronenburg but I don't trust beer either. I'll bet those globalists have put some chemical in it that'll make me either sterile or take five years off my life!"

That said, I found this clip of Jones recently talking with Lord Christopher Monckton, who claims that David Cameron's Government has applied to the EU explicitly to ban the wearing of crucifixes. He also has some interesting things to say about the Bishops of England and Wales.

The truth of the issue is that the Government has applied to stop people from wearing Crucifixes in the workplace only. But, then, I guess that you can start from the office and work your way out onto the pavement and then in people's homes and Churches and stuff. If you want more cheery news from Lord Monckton, then watch his other recent interview with Prison Planet, 'Agenda 21's Globalist Death Plan for Humanity'.

Happy Feast of Pentecost, readers, and remember that whenever Governments try to crush the Church the Church wins eventually. Maybe two thirds of humanity has to be wiped out before humanity gets the message that the Church was on the right track after all and that Government without God is a natural disaster waiting to happen.

I particularly like the bit where Jones says, "Maybe these EU bureaucrats/globalists really ARE vampires!"

And he wonders why Prison Planet doesn't get much credibility!

More on St Philip Neri

O glorious St. Philip, who wast so favored by God with the gift of consoling and assisting thy spiritual children at the hour of death, be also my advocate and father when I shall find myself at that dreadful moment. Obtain for me that at that hour the devil may not conquer me, nor temptation overcome me, nor fear itself revile me; but that, strengthened by a lively faith, a fervent hope and, a sincere charity, I may sustain with patience and perseverance that supreme struggle, and that, full of confidence in the mercy of the Lord, and in the infinite merits of Jesus Christ and the protection of the Most Blessed Mary, I may deserve to die the death of the just, and be united with thee and all the saints in the blessed home of Paradise, to praise and enjoy the Lord forever. Amen. 

(An Indulgence of 100 Days, once a day) 

Flame and Citron

Flame and Citron (2008) is Denmark's entry in the burgeoning World War II Resistance genre. Like its peers (Black Book, Army of Crime) Flame is packed with graphic violence, double-crosses and moral ambiguity. If not the best of its kind, it's certainly entertaining.

In 1943 Denmark, the Holger Danske resistance group targets Nazi occupiers and their collaborators. Bent Faurschou-Hild, aka Flame (Thure Lindhard) is a trigger-happy fanatic, while Jorgen Haagen Schmith - Citron (Mads Mikkelsen) is a neurotic man with a haunted past. The two have no qualms killing Nazi collaborators, but things grow complicated when Flame falls for Ketty (Stine Stengade), who claims to be a fellow Resistance fighter. Flame discovers that his boss Winther (Peter Mygind) may be playing a dangerous double-game, selling out his colleagues to Gestapo chief Hoffman (Christian Berkel) - and having Flame and Citron clean up his mess.

Flame and Citron provides an extremely jaundice view of wartime heroics. Unlike Army of Crime, which glorifies its insurgent heroes (they'd *never* murder civilians!), Flame shows the Danish partisans dispatching victims without sentimentality. The Resistance leaders' incessant infighting makes Hoffman's Gestapo look genial. It's never clear who's betraying who, with Ketty, Winther and Hoffman working personal agendas. The double-dealing makes Flame's patriotism a bitter joke: the idea that he's dispatching innocents to cover his boss's tracks is disturbing. We sympathize with Flame's father (Jesper Christensen), a hotelier who quietly sits things out.

Flame stumbles a bit on the character front. Flame's willingness to allow victims to explain themselves becomes increasingly frustrating, even if it helps unspool the plot. Less functional are Citron's marital troubles, which serve a character purpose but distract from the story. But Ole Christian Madsen's direction sells the drama, providing grim photography and well-scaled shootouts that overcome its dramatic missteps.

Thure Lindhart's intense performance makes his flawed character believable. Even better is Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale), whose wonderfully grave, stubbled face speaks volumes about a painful past. Stine Stengade handles her femme fatale role well, and Christian Berkel (Valkyrie) adds another odious Nazi to his resume. Hanns Zischler (Munich) gets an intriguing character, a semi-retired German colonel of inscrutable allegiance.

Flame and Citron doesn't get points for originality in its subgenre. Even so, it's a compelling film with a dolorous moral subtext.

Out of Africa

At the end of April our daughter Catherine returned from her mission to Ethiopia where she and thirteen other surgeons and nurses operated for 12 hours at a stretch on the maimed, diseased and ravaged faces of, in the main, children.

It was, quite obviously, a profound and moving experience; half way through her stint she managed to get a skype connection and we were able to see her and hear her news. I have never seen her so animated, so totally enchanted with the experience, despite that fact that it was both gruesome and gruelling.

Here are a few points from her conversation then and also from what she has since told me.

I have used a bullet point format as, really, the story is Catherine’s and I am sure that, one day soon, when she has drawn breath, she will wish to tell it in her own words.

• The team all sacrificed a considerable amount of personal belongings when packing their cases, in order to make up the weight difference with drugs and equipment. Sadly, the Ethiopian customs officials seized it all and did not return these vital supplies until the last day. That meant that operations were carried out with the most basic of resources and patients had to recover from major surgery without the benefit of painkilling morphine.
• Food and drink for the medical team was basic and only showed up sporadically. The diet was unvaried throughout.
• The patients were not served food and drink by the Ethiopian medics as they had no containers or cups. The British team bought plastic bags (so that the curry slops could be poured in and then given to each patient) and then they bought bottled water and cut up the bottles to make cups for water.There is no system of food and drink provision unless you have relatives to bring it in for you.
• The team was approached to help a nine year old boy whose face had been ripped off by hyenas. This is the story:-

A group was returning at night from a wedding celebration when they were attacked by a pack of hyenas. Two children were killed and the nine year old boy maimed before the group managed to get to safety. Apart from his horrendous facial injuries the boy was left with a large hole in his skull. The three plastic surgeons discussed the problem during the course of an evening and then announced that they would operate using a groundbreaking technique. Normally, such surgery would involve a flap of skin taken from the forearm being grafted over the gaping wound but, under the less than ideal conditions in Addis Ababa, this would certainly fail. Instead they left the flap attached to the boy’s forearm (ensuring a blood supply that would aid the healing process) but grafted it to his head so that his arm was firmly fixed to his forehead. He will remain like that for two weeks before they can be certain of success.

·             A young Ethiopian Catholic nun was assigned as a trainee to Catherine so that she could learn  

           western nursing practice.

I have omitted a large amount of detail in order not to prejudice the operational freedom of individuals or the aid organisations; there is much more to tell and most of it is horrific.

But, she wants to go back again next year.

Thank you to all who so very generously donated towards the mission, Project Harar.

You can read PH’s write up HERE

It is still May, Mary's month

Salve Regina, Mater misericordiae,
Vita dulcedo et spes nostra salve.
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae.
Ad te suspiramus gementes et flentes,
    in hac lacrimarum valle.
Eja ergo advocata nostra,
illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte.
Et Jesum benedictum fructum ventris tui
nobis post hoc exsilium ostende.
O clemens, o pia, o dulcis Virgo Maria.

What is this anti Jewish Catholic thing?

I don’t understand it. I’ve never understood it.

If there are Catholics out there who hate the Jews or discriminate against them in any way, then they are in big trouble, or, at least, their souls are.

To inflict racial, sectarian (or homosexual) hatred against your fellow man is to be in breach of the fifth commandment and that means, to be in a state of mortal sin.

Surely no Catholic would wish to enter into such a state?

A Jew died to save the world - so how can we "hate" them?

Aah….of course, I was forgetting that certain Bishop. Now I am the last person to be an apologist on his behalf but….has he actually expressed hatred?

Certainly he has cast doubts over the existence of  the gas chambers but does that constitute racial hatred or sectarianism? I doubt it.

It may show an irrational mind and it may be a screen for something worse but, on its own it hardly merits coverage.

We used to sing our Lent and Easter hymns quite happily once, chirruping away about  “…while Jews deride..”and in our liturgy we spoke of "perfidious Jews". Well, it was a perfidious act was it not?

Is that racial hatred?

I always thought that we were just recognising that it was the Jews that gave Our Lord up for Pilate’s judgement.

The Jews schemed, pushed and started proceedings and the Romans concluded the affair. 

Or, have I got it wrong?

When we condemn Mao Tse Tung or Stalin for the various genocidal    purges that they carried out are we being racist? Or just objective and honest?

If we then lay the blame for the death of Christ largely on the Jews are we not again being honest and objective.

There is one blogger who believes that I am a racist because I have expressed a dislike of the practice or recruiting priests from Africa and India (in particular) to come and work in parishes in England and Wales, permanently, that is.

I think that is wrong. For a start their own countries, who have funded their training, desperately need them.
I also believe that they can offer a limited amount to the British parishes they are appointed to. And I have good proof of that.

I can also recall an unholy row a few years ago because the Health Service and some schools were “poaching” doctors, nurses and teachers from third world countries, giving them a brief bit of updating training and then using them to plug the gaps in health and education.

That was wrong because it deprived the developing world of badly needed highly skilled people.

So, I dislike the practice, not the individuals; I dislike the homosexual system, not the individuals.

I am not too keen on Jews either; again, not the individuals or the race.

 It is more an issue of behaviour, characteristics, if you will. I certainly would not work for a Jewish company but I don’t think that means that I am anti-semitic in any way.

There are several nationalities or faiths that I would not wish to find myself beholden to.

To me that is no different from stating that you would not wish to work for X company because you dislike their method of operation. Racism does not enter into it. Preference is not the same as hatred.  

Maybe it would be better put to state that I prefer not to mix commercially with certain races. 

I am happy to have them as my friends although, in truth, I do not seek them out.

I veer towards Catholic friends, with a few notable exceptions. Life is easier and more relaxed if, forgive me, you are all singing off the same plainchant score.

And it does appear to be anathema for anyone to "hate" Jews when we owe our very existence to one.

The video that no Protestant ever wants to watch...

....and no Muslim, Sikh, Jew or Buddhist either.


I am reminded of the words of Archbishop Fulton Sheen: "No other leader of a world religion has laid down his life for his people.....and then returned from the dead..."

A beautiful Italian blog

I stumbled, by chance, across this blog called Spiritual Friends - it is well worth translating for those who, like me, speak only 'bar' Italian.


I particularly liked this picture that accompanied Antonio's post on prayer.


                                                                           

To me it speaks volumes. Above all else it is saying: "Covering your head looks much more reverent than going bareheaded in church" or, even, "It does not have to be a mantilla"  


And now, my thanks to all of you who have commented and are praying for my grandson. I have some sort of a glitch on my combox right now and so, I cannot respond.


But to you all, my thanks - and please keep up the prayers as his situation is still very serious and he now needs two more operations.


And a note for Jane. The email link from your profile does not appear to be working. Your series of historic posts has evoked many memories for me, really excellent, thank you.

An invitation......for Corpus Christi 7th June

OK this is not quite Swansea Cathedral but
we will still have the King of Kings present

If you recall with a certain longing, the annual Corpus Christi Mass, processions and devotions or, if you have never been to Mass in the Extraordinary Form on the great feast of Corpus Christi, then please stop what you are doing and make a note in the diary, book the train or plane and go to Laterooms.com to find a hotel for the night.


Why? Because the second city of Wales, Swansea, and to be more precise St Joseph's Cathedral, mother church of the Diocese of Menevia, will be hosting an evening Sung Mass at 7pm.

This is an opportunity not to be missed; and, if  EWTN would like to televise the Mass, then they or others would be most welcome.

Youth Information Service Van in Catholic School Showdown

'Hi, I'll have a massive bag of condoms please. No flake, thanks...'

A part of the reason - among the many other facets of the State's incremental take-over of British society - that I believe we're headed for a dystopic situation in this country is the way in which central and local Government groom our children and feel it perfectly natural that the State should be the prime moral educators and indeed general educators of children.

The phrase 'to groom' is particularly apt for this blog post as well, because on my way home today from a local park, I saw a Brighton and Hove City Council 'Youth Information Bus'.

Standing a little further away from the vehicle than the little nipper pictured above, you could be forgiven for thinking Preston Park had an ice cream van. It's a sweltering day and I may have even considered a 99 with a flake myself, but on arrival at the scene, I realised the only things of different flavours available at this little van would be condoms.

So, what is a van manned by two Council workers with leaflets, some seating inside and an array of prophylactics doing in Preston Park? Well, the youth workers wait there inside or outside the 'youth bus' for young people coming back from their schools and colleges just in case they 'need a chat' with some youth workers.

Of course the 'service' involved here is one of State to child. So, young people want to talk about things that are bothering them. It could be bullying at school, it could be a sensitive issue at home, or it could be that the young person wants to talk about the fact they drink too much alcohol or something. Or, it could be that they just need to top up their 'C-Card' so that the youth can carry on having sex with whoever they happen to be having sex with, safe in the knowledge that condoms are a not entirely successful way of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy.

So, naturally, with my eager Catholic blogger hat on, I approached the workers and asked whether they are involved in abortion referrals. For some reason, the idea of what resembles an ice cream van in a local park preying on young teenagers in order to get them into abortion clinics, I thought, would make for an interesting blog post. The workers replied that only GPs can refer abortions but that if someone approached them telling them they had an unwanted pregnancy and they wanted an abortion that they would be able to "signpost" that person to an abortion clinic. Personally, I thought that wasn't that much of a juicy story, but I did spy some leaflets in their windows from Brook, advertising their 'counselling services' to young people who just wanted a 'confidential chat' about issues that affect them. It's not a juicy story because we've all known for a long time how involved youth 'services' have been in State schools.

If anything, its a surreal, rather 'Big Brother' situation when the ice cream van is absent from the park but the condom van is regularly there waiting for children to come and pick from their selection. I was just about to leave when, astonishingly, the worker decided to voluntarily divulge extra 'information' of which I was certainly previously unaware.

Cardinal Newman Catholic School, Hove

The youth service worker decided told me that the Council's Youth Information Service (not to be confused with Connexions - who in Brighton, at least, - lost their funding) have been doing some work with the children of Cardinal Newman Catholic School in Hove.

I replied that what with the Catholic Church's teaching on contraception being what it is, that the fact they are doing this 'sexual health service' thing with Cardinal Newman is rather odd.

She replied that for that reason the 'youth information bus' is not allowed on the school premises. But, she added, instead they situate themselves about 100 - 200 yards away up the road near the Texaco garage, so that Catholic children can access their 'services'. So, naturally, I asked them how the school feel about that situation. The worker replied that the school are 'not unsupportive' of their work.

I wonder, how 'not supportive' of their work with Cardinal Newman's children would the school be if all the parents of Cardinal Newman children knew that there was a van distributing condoms to their children and 'signposting' their children for abortions? How 'not unsupportive' of the work of the youth information bus with Cardinal Newman children be if the Bishop was aware of it? How 'not unsupportive' would the school be if the presence of the bus just yards away from the Catholic High School with the school's tacit consent were a fact known by the Catholic Church on a local and even national level?

It appears to me that the fact that Cardinal Newman don't have the minibus on their premises but have no objections to the youth service's 'work' with Cardinal Newman children just yards down the road means that the school have a 'hear no evil, say no evil, speak no evil' policy towards the Council's 'safe sex' service. Of course, whether a Catholic Bishop with Crozier in hand and Mitre on head, whose chief 'safeguarding' job is to defend Catholic children from those who wish to destroy his little flock members body and soul would take the same view of this situation is perhaps a question which could be directed to His Lordship, once he is fully informed of these affairs. If I were in the Council's youth information service team, right now, I would be very, very worried, because I cannot imagine any Catholic Bishop being in any way happy about this situation in which the State is encroaching on the religion, morality and beliefs of Catholic schools, teachers, parents and, indeed, children.

You (and I) can contact Bishop Kieran Conry to alert His Lordship to this situation by emailing him at: bishop@dabnet.org and/or His Lordship's Secretary: sue.jennings@dabnet.org

By all means, feel free to quote from this blogpost. Oh and do say a Hail Mary that the Youth Information Service bus gets told to clear off from preying on Catholic high school kids and young adults in Brighton and Hove. As a Catholic who may one day be a parent with a child at school, it would certainly worry me if the Catholic School in my local area did not engage in some kind of a showdown with the Council over this matter. After all, wasn't it the Council who recently cut the local bus transport service to Cardinal Newman Catholic School?