The poll is dead!

The vote on Muslim Prayer Rooms on my sidebar has suffered from, what shall I call it? Pollution?

As a result, it is now dead, extinct, it has ceased to exist.

 

 

Another poll that has ceased to exist



Yes, lets call it pollution and leave it there.

Some have suggested that I run it again but, with the best will in the world, it just will not be the same.

Never mind, we know that, overwhelmingly, the people who voted were opposed to Catholic School premises being used for worship by those of the Islamic faith.

Many of those who have written to me asking for their names to be included are school teachers.
All of them are suffering for their Faith (for presenting the teachings of HMC without any touchy feely perversions).

But, this abuse of Church teaching, and of Church premises continues apace.

There is a great deal of duplicity taking place.

Parents who have struggled to give their children a Catholic education, find that another religion is being inserted into the ethos of the school.

School mission statements, ever bland, are in breach of what they promise, 'A good, Catholic environment etc'

And the misuse of school premises presents those involved in making rooms available, with the charge of theft.

Yes, the sin of theft. 

There are costs associated with every physical part of a school;  rates, heating, lighting, caretaking, maintenance. If those costs are used for any purpose other than those intended, it amounts to stealing.

I mention this fact only because it tends to get overlooked when we speak of the equally serious religious aspect.

The letter to Archbishop Peter Smith will be sent next Friday 7th June and, if you have not already added your name, please do so now, either by emailing me on r.collinsassoc@btinternet.com or, by leaving your name in the comment box.

Of course, Southwark is not the only diocese where such abuses are taking place, but we have to make a start somewhere.

Thank you.



 

Oh no! I have got it wrong about Muslim Prayer Rooms!

I am sorry. So very sorry, so-oo sorry.

Hello - I'm your new parish counsellor



You see there are no Muslim Prayer Rooms in the Catholic Schools of England and Wales - I stand corrected.

I have been told this fact and I am sure my informant is correct.

He tells me that there are no Muslim Prayer Rooms in our schools....only rooms used by Muslim pupils for prayer.

Umm....just run that past me again please.....you mean there are only dedicated rooms for Muslims to pray in.....no Muslim Prayer Rooms?

Ooh, I'm feeling a bit funny, time for a couple of Mogadon and a lie down.

And, you may be surprised, dear friends (and others) to learn that I have been reading Twitter....yes, really.
 It's easy, just like reading haiku.
Anyway, some kindly old soul made a comment on this whole Muslim Prayer Room debate and tweeted the following:

"Maybe our own pupils would learn from the Muslims" (that's my paraphrase but accurate in essence).

Ah, well, that makes sense. Let's make Muslim Prayer Rooms mandatory in all Catholic Schools so that Catholic pupils can learn how to pray!

Stop the world, I want to get off!

Cracker: The Mad Woman in the Attic/To Say I Love You

Uninitiated? For a brief primer on Cracker, click here.

The Mad Woman in the Attic 
Air dates: 9/27/93 and 10/4/93
Written: Jimmy McGovern
Directed: Michael Winterbottom

"Nobody ever loses their memory. It gets locked away like a madwoman in the attic. Occasionally you hear her scream, but you don't unlock the door and have a look."

Pilot episodes are tricky beasts. Understandably, television creators aren't immediately sure what direction they're taking, how to handle the characters, what style works or how to approach the material generally.  Thus pilots tend to be grab bags of ideas, showing germs of the show to come, but also awkward elements soon to be downplayed or discarded entirely. All that, and they need to wrap it up in an entertaining story.

The Mad Woman in the Attic suffers from these early jitters. McGovern tries to establish Cracker's world and tell a compelling mystery in 100 minutes, leading to a somewhat awkward serial. While more conventional than later efforts it's still entertaining, showing signs of the brilliant show to come.

A teenaged girl is found murdered on a train. The only police suspect is Thomas Kelley (Adrian Dunbar), found with the victim's blood on his clothes but suffering from amnesia. Fitz spends several days grilling Kelley and grows convinced he didn't do it; he tries to draw out Kelley's repressed memory. A phone call from a too-helpful individual (Nicholas Woodeson) may hold the key.

Mad Woman certainly shows birthing pains. Early scenes present a slow police procedural as Bilborough and Beck (accompanied by an obnoxious American pathologist) laboriously investigate a murder. Michael Winterbottom presents colorful style (intercutting the killer's breakdown with a huffing train engine) later eschewed for grimy docudrama. There's also a soundtrack packed with blues songs, an approach McGovern quickly phased out. And Fitz having Kelly visit his home doesn't seem right; presumably Albie Kinsella wouldn't get an invite.

McGovern introduces embryonic motifs. Early scenes highlight the victim's parents (John Grillo and Kika Markham) being dragged into Bilborough's investigation. This became a key device in later episodes; McGovern mitigates any sympathy doled out to his killers by showing the consequences of their actions. He characteristically highlights Kelley's religious ambivalence (he's a doubting monastic student), a counterpoint to Fitz's raging atheism. Then there's police eagerness to get results (eg. a conviction) clashing with justice. This time though, Bilborough gets bailed out by a chatty criminal; next time he's not so lucky.

Fitz at least emerges fully formed. His failings are placed front-and-center, placing a racing bet in the very first scene. Then there's his hysterical lecture, literally hurling Spinoza and Freud at his student audience. McGovern earns credit for one of the most dynamic character intros ever. Fitz already shows sharp interplay with family, mutual suspicion with coppers and piercing interrogation skills. Robbie Coltrane inhabits the role like a glove; no awkwardness here, anyway.

The supporting cast gets short shrift. Barbara Flynn, at least, gets a bravura monologue denouncing her husband's vices. Judith isn't the typical long-suffering wife who doesn't understand her genius husband. She's got Fitz's measure and fights him tooth-and-nail. But Geraldine Somerville's virtually invisible before getting some last-minute banter with Coltrane. Christopher Eccleston and Lorcan Cranitch are merely tough cops with few hints of the layered characterizations to follow.

Mad Woman's biggest fault is its familiar whodunnit structure. Amnesia isn't a novel hook (see Spellbound for one), nor is Adrian Dunbar's performance especially memorable. When Michael Hennessey makes his brief, seemingly inconsequential appearance it's easy to divine what's up. If the crisp story doesn't hold your attention, set pieces will: obese egotist he may be, Fitz interrogating Sweeney in front of a moving train is badass. It's a formative work, and hardly a bad one.

To Say I Love You
Air dates: 10/11, 10/18 and 10/25/93
Written: Jimmy McGovern
Directed: Andy Wilson

"What is death, Panhandle?"
"The finest aphrodisiac in the world, Dr. Fitzgerald."

To Say I Love You is a major step forward. McGovern shows a much firmer grip on Fitz's world than before, layering personal drama into the crime texture. Again he employs a familiar plot, this time a pair of lover-killers. But everything's so well-handled the dearth of originality scarcely rankles.

Twentysomething Sean Kerrigan (Andrew Tiernan) impresses Tina Brien (Susan Lynch) at a karaoke bar. The two fall for each other. When small-time hood Cormack (Gavin Muir) ransacks Sean's apartment, Tina convinces Sean to get revenge. After murdering Cormack the two go on the lam, with DS Giggs (Ian Mercer) becoming a target. Fitz meanwhile balks at Judith's attempts to salvage their marriage, while casting his eyes at DS Penhaligon.

To Say I Love You provides our first "howcatchem," to borrow from Columbo. Sean and Tina's murderous relationship provides the show's focus. They're a curious mix: Sean's rage stems from an incurable stammer, which combined with Tina's recklessness makes a perfect storm of nastiness. Tina resents having to coddle her blind sister (Susan Vidler), rebelling against her status as forgotten sibling. Andrew Tiernan and Susan Lynch give memorable turns as pathetic losers whose crimes grow more pointless and desperate.


McGovern doesn't stray much from formula here, but it scarcely matters. The interrogation scenes crackle: Fitz builds Tina up to an ecstasy describing Bonnie & Clyde's climax, then demolishes them with a homily for their victims. (Here Fitz's fetish for Classic Hollywood serves a plot purpose!) There's still maddening lapses into hysteria whenever McGovern tries to raise the stakes. For the first time, a policeman becomes a victim, soon a recurring theme. Then there's the over-the-top ending, when Sean not only takes Sammy hostage but threatens to blow up a house with petrol and matches.

To Say I Love You makes its real impact by fleshing out the cast. Beck and Bilborough get their first shades of development, showing resentment towards Fitz even as they use him. How does it reflect on their professionalism that an outsider does their hard work? A media representative planning to interview Bilborough sees one of Fitz's demonstrations, then books the latter on a talk show! When Beck's more interested in taunting Sean than questioning him though, there's bigger problems than PR.

Sharper still are the Fitzgerald family troubles. Judith confronts Fitz with marriage counselor Graham (David Haig), whom Fitz ceaselessly emasculates. One hilarious scene sees Fitz disrupts a Gamblers Anonymous meeting ("By wankers and for wankers") with a card game. Fitz's reaction is telling: not merely stubborn, he's not remotely willing to change. "You wouldn't want me to lie," he cruelly replies to Judith's demands to stop gambling. He may occasionally substitute Diet Coke for whiskey but sees nothing wrong with selfishness.

Nor is this a mere tiff. Judith begins sleeping with Graham, more to irritate her husband than out of real affection towards that obsequious nebbish. In retaliation, Fitz begins flirting with Penhaligon in earnest, even taking her to a restaurant while Judith and Graham lunch. Penhaligon, already testy after seeing her promotion turned down, doesn't appreciate the humiliation. She gets her own back by dousing Fitz with ice water. McGovern presents this drama with droll wit and sharp insight, remaining well above soap opera level.

* * *

Cracker's first two episodes see Jimmy McGovern and Co. finding their bearings. There's excellent stuff in these shows, but they're nothing remarkable. Rest assured, they'll strike gold soon enough.

Spot the Difference

Starting from 2hrs 35 mins, we have Pope Francis's incensation of the Blessed Sacrament, our Eucharistic Lord.

Starting from 8 mins 41 seconds, we have Pope Benedict XVI's incensation of the Blessed Sacrament, our Eucharistic Lord.

Kneeling before our Eucharistic Lord has always been important to Popes, as you can see.

Kneeling Catholic will be none too pleased for reasons which will be obvious. Our beloved Holy Father says so many good and wise things but one wonders if there were some behind His Holiness who were wondering when Pope Francis would use the prie-dieu set before him.

Pray that the Holy Father sets a good example to the rest of us, especially at this time when faith in the Real Presence is so weak and so fragile, to kneel before our God, as did his predecessor and, presumably, all of His Holiness's predecessors.

St. Francis of Assisi, in his "Letter to All Superiors of the Friars Minor" said:

'When the priest is offering sacrifice at the altar or the Blessed Sacrament is being carried about, everyone should kneel down and give praise, glory, and honor to our Lord and God, living and true.'

I liked the gesture that the Holy Father made in travelling humbly by foot as a pilgrim following the Lord in procession, as one of us, but would have preferred that the Holy Father had not broken with his predecessors on this occasion and had knelt before the Lord Jesus in adoration and worship. It goes without saying that kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament, in adoration, is a genuine gesture of humility before God.

It's not that I'm paranoid......

....but someone's out to get me!

Oh no! Not the limp lettuce leaf...anything but that....please!

Observant readers may have noticed the rapid decline of my voting poll in the sidebar. Four days ago, the tally was 140 souls who had voted, virtually all utterly opposed to Muslim Prayer Rooms in Catholic Schools.

Roughly 5% were in favour (who they?) I think I can guess.

Now, my poll has been snaffled, hacked, got at, knobbled......the votes have disappeared and only a few voters are appearing, something like 10, (sniff!).

I am, of course, not pointing a finger at any individual or coven group. It might well have been a blip on Blogger, who knows?

But, in the light of approaches that have been made to me, it may be worth repeating my new mantra, that names of signatories will not be revealed to any person other than their Graces, Smith & Mennini.

I know that quite  few Catholic teachers have signed up, considerably distressed at what is going on.

I know that the forces of greyness would not hesitate to bring influence to bear to persecute these good people.

It is an irony, is it not? That Catholic persecution in the western world today, is undertaken by those in authority within the Church and their insipid feminist hangers on.

On the plus side is the fact that, being attacked by these people is rather like going three rounds in the ring with a limp lettuce leaf!

If you have not done so, please sign by leaving your name in the comment box or by emailing me on r.collinsassoc@btinternet.com

And - if you don't know what all this is about, please visit my more recent posts.

Cracker: An Introduction

"I drink too much, I smoke too much, I gamble too much. I am too much!"

Among the glut of '90s British crime dramas, two stand out. One was Prime Suspect (1991-1996, 2003-2006), Lynda La Plante's long-running series with Helen Mirren. This series gained acclaim for highlighting sexism within traditionally masculine environments and protagonist Jane Tennison's struggle with alcoholism; a character study within a smashing police procedural. La Plante's fearless examination of social issues, and Mirren's striking performance, made Prime Suspect an international hit.

Jimmy McGovern's Cracker (1993-1996) successfully ran on iTV simultaneous to Suspect, yet never matched its international breakout status (a flaccid American reboot notwithstanding). McGovern's drama is a worthy companion piece, perhaps even better: it mixes crime drama and political commentary with a sharp character study, creating a masterpiece far ahead of its time. Cracker's layered plot, twisted character dynamics and general complexity are remarkable for a show that produced only nine episodes.

Cracker follows many precepts of your standard police drama. Its protagonist, Edward "Fitz" Fitzgerald (Robbie Coltrane), is a brilliant criminal psychologist who helps the Manchester police. Strict realism goes out the window when Fitz savagely questions suspects without a lawyer present. So far, so familiar. But McGovern adds trenchant satire and tortured family drama. There's a hero who's not only a personal wreck, but possesses a spotty professional record. There are policemen (and women) just as damaged as the criminals. More generally, there's a trenchant, scathing look at post-Thatcher England.

Make no mistake, Cracker is a very English show - just not the posh, refined England we expect. The Greater Manchester Police sport regional dialects: Fitz is Scottish, Beck Irish, Wise Liverpudlian, the rest convincingly Mancunian. Characters follow football (soccer for us Yanks) and down dirty beer in dingy pubs. Blue collar whites, colored immigrants and foreigners all face discrimination, distrust and destitution. It's a much grimmer, darker Britain than American viewers expect, evincing a distinct working class rage.

Thus the layered villains. Most of McGovern's antagonists come from society's lower dregs, channeling engrained rage into violent action. McGovern expertly navigates a tightrope: he sympathizes with outcasts driven to murder, but won't glamorize their actions. Albie Kinsella's existential anguish is palpable, yet he's still a bastard who murders five people. We pity Floyd Malcolm's racial shame until recalling that he's a serial rapist. Maggie Harvey's justified anger at prostitutes doesn't excuse killing them. McGovern rails against the system but avoids espousing homicide as the solution.

Then there's Fitz himself, a classic anti-hero. At first glance he's not dissimilar from Sherlock Holmes or Columbo, an ace detective with a keen eye for detail. Where Holmes occasionally indulges in drugs, Fitz's vices completely consume him - especially gambling. "Why not a normal addiction?" wife Judith (Barbara Flynn) asks, reasoning heroin would at least kill him. McGovern shows Fitz's home life to be a shambles, with Judith flaunting her affairs and son Mark (Kieran O'Brien) all but disowning him. It's a palpable tragedy: Fitz, usually able to instantly decode criminals, remains oblivious to his own failings.

Most viewers see Robbie Coltrane as a comic actor, unfair to this multi-layered talent. Coltrane certainly indulges witty remarks, flirtation and James Cagney impressions throughout the show; Fitz is, along with everything else, highly amusing. Yet Coltrane's Scots bonhomie, channeled into drama, becomes a force of nature. Coltrane can display naive vulnerability; Fitz genuinely loves Judith and Mark, never understanding why they resent him. But interrogating suspects he's a force, probing for weakness with sensitive interrogation before exploding in hateful rage. Coltrane's brilliant acting ballasts even weaker installments.

The rich ensemble cast can't be done justice here. Barbara Flynn brilliantly shows Judith's impatience with her intolerable husband. She's balanced with Fitz's sometime-lover Jane Penhaligon (Geraldine Somerville), an ambitious lady cop well-written and acted enough to avoid being a Jane Tennison manque. Impulsive DCI Billborough (Christopher Eccleston) places "results" ahead of justice; DCI Wise (Ricky Tomlinson) provides a level-headed contrast. Then there's DS Jimmy Beck (Lorcan Cranitch), a boorish Irishman whose demons drive the show's most affecting arc. Frequently the side characters eclipse Fitz, sometimes spectacularly so.

If there's any weakness to McGovern's formula, it's his predilection for placing protagonists in jeopardy. It makes sense that police themselves become targets, and it's undeniably powerful when certain characters get killed or traumatized. Yet the trick wears thin over time, especially moments in Men Should Weep and True Romance where criminals menace Fitz's family. When handled well, this escalation proves extremely effective; when botched, it devolves the gritty procedural to cheap melodrama.

The cast brims with budding British talent. Coltrane remains familiar from Harry Potter, where he rejoined Geraldine Somerville. Lorcan Cranitch subsequently had high-profile roles on Ballykissangel and Rome, while Christopher Eccleston became a short-lived Doctor Who. Robert Carlyle parlayed his chilling guest appearance into myriad film (Trainspotting, The Full Monty) and television (Hamish Macbeth, Once Upon a Time) roles. Liam Cunningham (The Wind That Shakes the Barley), Samantha Morton (Elizabeth: The Golden Age) and Jim Carter (Downton Abbey) feature in one-off roles.

But Cracker's influence extends far beyond cast ubiquity. One can't credit McGovern alone for shifting television towards morally ambiguous protagonists. Yet Fitz undoubtedly presages anti-heroic detectives like Monk and Luther, let alone non-genre heroes like House. All protagonists who are severely flawed, often morally suspect, but undeniably brilliant in their respective fields. Fitz one-ups even these latecomers, however, by occasionally proving spectacularly wrong. Even Fitz's expertise doesn't always redeem him.

From here on, we'll examine the series through its individual episodes, however long that may take. I'd intended to dissect one episode per series, yet there's too much going on for a limited analysis. Each episode (even two one-off specials) thus earns a review, though I'll still single out standout episodes. Hopefully this approach does Cracker justice.

One final note: these reviews contain massive spoilers. I've no reticence about spoiling a 20 year old series for one, and it's impossible to discuss certain ongoing plots without referring to previous episodes. You've been warned.

A call to arms!

It has been suggested that other Catholic bloggers might like to involve themselves with the issue of Muslim Prayer Rooms in Catholic Schools and help collect signatories for the letter that will be sent to Archbishop Peter Smith next week.

We do need your help....please link to my post or ask for those who wish their name to be added to the letter (not to be publicised) to email me on r.collinsassoc@btinternet.com  or to leave their name in the comment box HERE

Thank you

The list of signatories is growing...

.....some 29 strong as of 11.03am today.

We especially would like to hear from parents of children at Catholic Schools who may be concerned at this spread of Muslim Prayer Rooms in their children's schools.

Please send me your name, either by email, to r.collinsassoc@btinternet.com  or in the comment box. Names will only appear on the letter to the Archbishops and not be shown publicly:

Hear is the letter again:

“Your Grace

We have been made aware of a number of Catholic Schools in your Archdiocese, where, in conflict with Catholic teaching and in direct contradiction of their mission statements, resources have been allocated to provide prayer rooms for Muslim pupils.

This is not an issue regarding Muslim pupils attending Catholic Schools, always provided that there is a shortfall in places.

Such attendance may be an opportunity for the Faith to be spread by good example and by observation on the part of the Muslim pupils.

It is concerned directly with the fact that this facility should not be provided on Catholic premises, especially a school setting where young people could, quite understandably, interpret the provision as a signal that there is no distinction between Islam and the Catholic Faith.

We hope that you will act to put an end to this practice and inform Headteachers, and also Chaplains, Priests and Deacons who may be involved in a pastoral role in the Catholic Education sector, to that effect.

We assure you of our prayers for you, your priests and all within your Archdiocese at all times”.

More on Muslim prayer rooms and a letter to the Archbishop

I posted, a few days ago, on the apparent surge in Catholic Schools dedicating some of their hard won resources to providing Prayer Rooms for Muslim students.

That goes against all the mission statements that any Catholic School has ever produced...you know, the ones that state:-

The XXXX School is a Catholic secondary school for boys of all abilities and all backgrounds. It exists to serve the educational needs of the Catholic community of  XXXX and neighbouring areas. As such, it will at all times seek, via opportunities for worship and prayer, and via the teaching of its religious studies programme, to deepen and enrich the Catholic faith of all its pupils. Further we seek to provide for these same pupils, access to real academic, sporting, musical and artistic excellence.

We believe as well that all aspects of the life of the school should be lived in a spirit of justice and charity and that Christian selflessness should be part of all our dealings with one another.

OK, no mention of other faiths there. 

No mention of taking funds from the Catholic coffers to provide a room facing Mecca for its male Muslim students. No mention of the dangers of apparently equating Islam with Catholicism.

So now is the time for action against such silliness. 

I have composed a letter to Archbishop Peter Smith (copy to HG Archbishop Mennini) and I am collecting signatories so that I may present the letter (hard copy) with as many names appended as possible.

I hope that you will agree to join in and send me your name, either in the comment box or, privately by emailing me at r.collinsassoc@btinternet.com

Your names will not be made public and only appear as signatories on the letter itself.....please help me on this one, we cannot allow this sort of abuse to continue.

Here is the letter:

"Your Grace

We have been made aware of a number of Catholic Schools in your Archdiocese, where, in conflict with Catholic teaching and in direct contradiction of their mission statements, resources have been allocated to providing prayer rooms for Muslim students.

This is not an issue with Muslim pupils attending Catholic Schools, always provided that there is a shortfall in places. Such attendance is an opportunity for the Faith to be spread by example and by observation on the part of the pupils.

It is concerned directly with the fact that this facility should not be provided on Catholic premises, especially, a school setting where young people could, quite understandably, interpret the provision as a signal that there is little or no difference between Catholicism and Islam.

We hope that you will act to put an end to this practice and inform Headteachers, Lay Chaplains and Deacons who may be involved in pastoral work in the Catholic School sector, to that effect.

We assure you of our prayers for you and your priests at all times."

So now, please send me your name if you agree with the content of the letter. It matters not whether you are from Southwark or, indeed from Britain, all signatures made with good intent are valid.

This needs nipping in the bud before it becomes the norm.

 

Happy Memorial Day!

I break my nine-day silence to commemorate Memorial Day. For all American veterans and soldiers currently serving, thank you.

No films recently, but a very special post (or series of posts) is in the works. Hopefully, fans of British television will appreciate it.

Archbishop makes earth shattering address to Welsh Assembly

Wales has 30,000 Mass goers and 30,000 Catholic schoolchildren.
Erm.....something does not quite add up Your Grace

Archbishop George Stack of Cardiff Archdiocese has been in post now for....what can it be?....seems like centuries, but, in fact, this dynamic prelate has only been in the hot seat for a mere two years.

And, in that time, has the Archdiocese surged ahead and made inroads as far as the implementation of Summorum Pontificum?

Developed a doctrinally accurate religious instruction programme with integrity for Catholic Schools within its remit?

Made a stand against the secular powers of abortion, euthanasia, same sex you know what and so on?

Inspired his 47 or so priests to take up cudgels against the state and to launch a programme designed to bring back to the Faith those who have....drifted?

Hmm......not sure; don't think so, can't see any evidence to the contrary.

But...but....dear reader. Do not despair.

His Grace this very month has attended the seat of governance in Wales, the Welsh Assembly no less and addressed them.

Now, if you have suffered from ennui which is a clever word for boredom, you may have take up watching rocks to see whether or not they move.

Some, indeed, find that pastime rather too labour intensive and watch, instead, proceedings of The Welsh Assembly.......(stretch, yawn).

This forum is the one where they address each other by their Christian fore names, which makes it exceedingly banal as they are all called Dai.

Confusion is the end result.

Enough of this rambling, pull up an old chair and prepare for some really hot stuff, the address made by His Grace, George Stack to the Assembly on 7th May.

But, before you do, don't forget to take your heart pills or Prozac or whatever it is that soothes the savage beast; this is heady stuff....

Here it is...Catholic rhetoric at its very best.....

Archbishop Stack's address

Could a signal be sent to Rome?

Could we, possibly, with every best intention, send a message to the Holy Father by........

....not having a Latin Mass Pilgrimage to Chartres next year?

Instead, could we have a combined pilgrimage involving Latin Mass followers
  and SSPX followers?

You may be aware that, each year, within a few days of each other, mainstream orthodox Catholicism has a pilgrimage from Paris to Chartres while, the SSPX hold one from Chartres to Paris.

That just seems plain b****y silly.

We are so close. We are one surely?

It is licit to attend SSPX Masses.

And, from the SSPX point of view, traditional mainstream Catholic Masses are legit (despite what one or two more prejudiced priests might say).


That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. 

Just imagine the force of 25,000 or 30,000 Catholics marching, singing and praying together. 
Please pray that both sides will come together ignoring the spite and contempt that will be levelled at them and join as one on this great Pilgrimage for 2014.

Here is an account of what already takes place; a meeting of two great forces for Christ:

A sense of unity among the two pilgrimages is nothing new.  Each year the lay leaders of the two pilgrimages—brothers in the old Faith—meet briefly at the halfway point in order to raise a glass to the Catholic Cause they all attempt to serve. But this year, an even stronger sense that Tradition is rising and Traditionalists are uniting prevailed throughout Pentecost weekend in France.  Bishop Fellay preached  a sermon to the SSPX pilgrims, for example, in which he recalled the example of St. Joan of Arc and the apparent hopelessness of the situation in her time, just before God Himself raised up a champion, The Maid. “Do we have the right to stay where we are?” asked Bishop Fellay. We do not have the final say “yes” or “no” for “he who wants to recognize our Fraternity is the Pope himself.”  Whatever one thinks of the situation between the SSPX and the Vatican, it cannot be denied that we’re all witnessing history in the making.

From: The Remnant (plus picture)

Thoughts on 'Same-Sex Marriage' (Continued...)

A same-sex union can never achieve conception as a rule - ever - in every case this cannot be achieved.

The reproductive system of male and female can effect the relationship of a marriage in terms of fertility. Fertility can cause joy and pain, for example, joy with the birth or conception of a child and pain if a couple or one of the couple are found to be infertile.

Fertility is a non-issue for same-sex couples. Therefore is it 'equal marriage' if a couple of different genders can achieve something that same-sex couples cannot - reproduction? Surely it is not and therefore cannot be called marriage because we are dealing with a different category of human relationship. Indeed, the Catholic Church would say that we are dealing here with a disordered sexual relationship, but, for same-sex couples, the opposite situation arises. The reproductive system of the couple - be they male and male or female and female - are never involved in the sexual union.

So we see that 1 man + 1 woman = new life in most cases, since even if they contracept, the removal of the contraceptive option allows the possibility of new life that they had hitherto been wilfully impeding.

1 man + 1 man or 1 woman + 1 woman = no new life in every case without exception.

So how can we use the same word to describe these two unions. It makes no sense unless you want to dismantle the meaning of the original word.

A same-sex couple could indeed adopt a child, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). A same-sex couple can also go through surrogacy, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). Indeed, a same-sex couple could go through IVF or surrogacy, should the law allow it (which in this country, it does). However, this will always involve artificial means of obtaining a child and the child can never be the result of their sexual union. Therefore, can we call this 'marriage'?

One could object that infertile couples go down this path, so why not same-sex couples? Yet that misses the point. Unlike for same-sex couples, for infertile heterosexual couples, their infertility is not a result of their union being fruitless because they have the same reproductive organs. It is because there is, for one reason or another, an element of sterility present in one or both of the parties. Yet their union stands and can be called 'marriage' because of the fact that their unitive and reproductive organs are different - not the same. Their union is not less a union because of 'faulty mechanics'. This is what a union is - the union of two complementary but essentially different human beings - biologically, sexually and reproductively - different because and only because they are male and female.

Not only the purpose of human sexuality and of marriage is being destroyed in the 'same-sex marriage' legislation, but, too, the purpose and meaning of male and female. Because marriage is to be an institution into which men can enter with men and women with women, the implicit message of the legislation is not just that marriage has no inherent meaning and purpose, but that to be male and to be female is the same thing. This is incredibly dangerous. We are now saying that men and women are not just 'equal', but we are saying that men and women are 'the same' even though this is a categorical lie of immense proportions. Men cannot, for instance, give birth. A man has no womb. A woman does. Women can breastfeed, a man cannot.

Much rides emotionally and within a marriage for couples in terms of fertility in that from the loving union of a man and a woman, a child may or may not be the result. There are things a heterosexual couple can do that a same-sex couple cannot do. For example, as well as the obvious examples, a same-sex couple can go down different avenues in order to obtain a child, but they cannot, for example, pursue natural family planning as can a couple composed of two persons of the opposite gender.

How is it that we can be at this stage of the progress of the legislation and yet men and women in public office, in politics, in the media and in academia have failed, completely, to object to this legislation purely in intellectual terms because the legislation is riddled with glaring logical inconsistencies and indeed, logical black holes? 

Ten marks of a cultural Catholic

Catholic Collar and Tie has an interesting and profound post on the modern malaise of being person rather than God focused in our spiritual lives.

We need more culture than this in our Catholic lives

The post author, Father Gary Dickson uses the phrase "culturally Catholic" by which I believe he means surrounding ourselves with the elements of the Faith that inspire us in our daily lives and act as a beacon to others in showing them what we believe in and stand for.

I thought that it might be interesting to list those acts and signs that are the mark of someone who is "culturally Catholic" not that this is, by itself, a fulfilment of our spiritual lives, more a reminder of who and what we should be.

1. A crucifix in the home

2. Having your home blessed

3. Saying grace before meals (in the home and out of it)

4. Reciting the Rosary daily

5. Displaying religious statues or pictures

6. Wearing the scapular or a holy medal

7. Inscribing the threshold lintel on the Feast of the Epiphany

8. Dressing appropriately for Mass, males as well as females

9. Having holy water and blessed candles at hand

10. Ownership of a home Douai Bible

And before anyone says it, these are external signs; we also need to incorporate the internal ones if we are to call ourselves Catholic.

Same-Sex Marriages with St Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation. This can be made clear if we observe the mode of generation carried out in various living things. Some living things do not possess in themselves the power of generation, but are generated by some other specific agent, such as some plants and animals by the influence of the heavenly bodies, from some fitting matter and not from seed: others possess the active and passive generative power together; as we see in plants which are generated from seed; for the noblest vital function in plants is generation.

Wherefore we observe that in these the active power of generation invariably accompanies the passive power. Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other. But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gn. 2:24).

~ St Thomas Aquinas

Until now, marriage had a public purpose. What is the purpose of  'same-sex unions' which are to be known as 'marriage'? What is a 'union'? Is a union of two persons to signify a purpose? If so, what is that purpose without the 'generative' potential?

Does a 'same-sex marriage' have any purpose at all save for a political purpose? This is new. Marriage, of itself, as an institution, has never had an explicitly political purpose despite what feminists would posit. Freely entered into by two parties, male and female, its purpose has been clear.

Does a union make any sense without any reference to a purpose that effects the society beneficially? In what way do same-sex marriages benefit society? Surely these benefit 'individuals inside the society' rather than society itself. In sacramental terms, a union of two persons involves the mystery of Christ's love for His Church. God is 'in' a marriage in the Church as the two become 'one flesh'. Marriage is a 'type' or 'shadow' of the eternal union with God, but is not that union. Some have achieved this union with God in this life. These we call Saints.

St Catherine of Siena: Achieved union with God in this life

Obviously, wider society cares very little for what St Thomas Aquinas (or any Catholic) has to say on the subject of marriage, but philosophically we have entered uncharted water. No philosophers, no, not a single one - has advanced a philosophical case for 'same-sex unions', as far as I know.

There are plenty of 'natural law' arguments against 'same-sex marriage' but I think we can now concede that natural law is not respected any longer. The idea of sexual union in marriage being a 'type' or foretaste of the Heavenly union of Christ with His Bride - union with God - is not going to make sense to many people in an atheistic age, yet, I fear, we have entered into such a breach with the natural law that only the renewed discovery of the Divine law will restore it or recover it, since definitions and understanding of marriage are to be confused, blurred and destroyed.

We are always told we should question things. Will this new bill, when or if it becomes the law of the land, be questionable from a philosophical point of view? Will it be questioned in the academic sphere? Or will it now be something that is intellectually, academically, philosophically 'off-limits' simply because it is a re-definition established by Parliament itself. The consequences are huge everywhere in every sphere. Aside from the promoted desire to raise the autonomy of the individual above our responsibility to wider society, the arguments for 'same-sex marriage' have had convincing (even if you and I are not convinced) emotional power. It is emotional power and the power of emotive words and rhetorical spin alone that has gained for 'same-sex marriage' a global stage and the registers of town halls (and some churches) across the World. Without the power of the banal media age, this could never have worked. Never.

Perhaps someone can remind me of another age in which philosophers took human marriage and dismantled it, advancing the case for men to be married to men and women to be married to women. Marriage has hitherto had a fixed purpose recognised by the beggar and the philosopher alike - even philosophers who rejected much of Divine Revelation, like Kant. Kant was always talking about his 'duty' from what I remember of political philosophy. Other political philosophers talked of individual liberty, but nothing quite like this. Everything has consequences for everyone else in the minds of the philosophers. Such a thing never entered into the minds of the philosophers. 'Same-sex love', if it was mentioned, was something like a pursuit outside of marriage, even if someone was married, motivated by the pleasure principle for the explicit purpose of pleasure. Still, however, marriage was left untouched because of the esteem in which it was held for its unique purpose.

David Cameron: Just what is he up to?

So, we are in uncharted waters. 'Same-sex marriage' is deeply flawed because it is illogical. It can only be made logical if marriage has now no human purpose, no societal purpose, no natural purpose, no biological purpose, no Divine purpose or redemptive purpose. All these have been stripped away with the promotion of the desire for individual autonomy raised above the interests of all others, excluding the interests of all others.

The only political philosophers who would want to see 'same-sex marriage' are those who considered marriage itself a 'bad thing', something to be destroyed in furthering a future goal, such as the followers of Karl Marx, like Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School. They're the only philosophers I can think of who would want to attack marriage as an institution and shape it according to a new paradigm that disregarded its purpose entirely. It is not just the meaning, or definition of marriage that is at stake. It is the purpose of marriage. Intellectually, David Cameron is being very dishonest from the very outset. He says he wishes to extend marriage to people of the same gender, yet it cannot be extended without being diluted, worse, have its original purpose and intention destroyed in the process.

You may very well disagree with my view on 'same-sex marriage', since you hold the opposite view, but I would posit you would find it hard to disagree with what I have written on it here, since these are merely observations and questions. You cannot extend marriage to people of the same-sex without destroying its meaning and its purpose. For the benefits won under new legal recognition, is it really worth it? Would you feel great about getting married to someone of the same gender if you understood that what you were doing was breaking no human law, nor the law of God that you have disregarded, but wilfully destroying the purpose of marriage by contracting a counterfeit one? Do you really believe that what you do has no impact on society? Is there anyone who really believes our actions have no impact on anybody else?

The problem is this: while different couples of opposite genders marry for some different reasons, the reasons why couples of the opposite sex will desire to marry will always be different to the reasons why couples of the same-sex desire to marry, because these two marriages are entirely different, therefore they can never be 'equal marriage'. They cannot ever, ever have the same outcome from their 'union'. Many couples today contracept, and while we know what the Church teaches on the matter, a same-sex couple can never contracept. Therefore these two relationships are entirely different in order. They are not equal. Marriage cannot be 'equalised'.

It astonishes me that I know someone in prison for walking on the wrong street in Brighton since he is barred from so many streets for being 'anti-social', but the Prime Minister can destroy the meaning and purpose of human marriage and walk about like nothing anti-social has happened.

Crackdown on Freemason Priest 'at Rome's Request'

Courtesy of BBC

'A Roman Catholic parish priest at an elite French ski resort has been stripped of his Church functions for refusing to renounce Freemasonry.

Father Pascal Vesin was ordered by his bishop to cease his work in the Alpine resort of Megeve, the parish said. Bishop Yves Boivineau had warned Fr Vesin about his "active membership" of the Grand Orient de France lodge. Freemasonry has been condemned as anti-Christian and anti-clerical by various popes through history.

Bishop Boivineau ordered the priest to cease his functions "at Rome's request", the parish said. In March, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - effectively the Church's watchdog - asked for the priest's departure.

Three members of the diocese of Annecy then met him but Fr Vesin said he would not leave the lodge. A statement from the diocese quoted by Le Figaro newspaper stressed that the penalty imposed on the Freemason priest was not final and could yet be lifted because "mercy goes hand in hand with truth".

Fr Vesin has been parish priest of Sainte-Anne d'Arly Montjoie in Megeve since 2004, according to another French newspaper, Le Messager. In an interview in January, he set out liberal views of the Church's role. He said he favoured allowing some priests to marry and said he had refused to endorse a demonstration against same-sex marriage in Paris. Conspiracy theories and controversy have dogged the Freemasons throughout their existence, fuelled by their secretive image, though for some they are just a gentleman's club devoted to charitable giving.'

Deo gratias. Fantastic. Now for the purge in Rome?

For those interested (yes, both of you) the annual Bilderberg Conference will this year be taking place in...wait for it...Watford, Hertfordshire. Henry Kissinger is going to be there. Peter Mandelson is going to be there. David Rockefeller is going to be there. Obviously, Alex Jones is going to be there too.

A church torn apart

This is another post on the parish church in Aberystwyth.

Bishop Tom Burns wants to flog off the site and build a new church (probably round and concrete) out of town, just too far for elderly and infirm parishioners and anyway, shouldn't the church be at the heart of the parish?

Those who oppose claim that the old church is basically sound and certainly salvageable, but of course, it needs a bit of cash thrown at it to get it up and working again.

The Bish would say, that those in opposition have added to the cost of re-building by inflicting delays upon proceedings, and, he is probably right.

But, my friend informs me that two thirds of the parish are opposed to the move and, if Bishop Tom runs a listening church in his diocese of Menevia, he must be a little hard of hearing.

There are claims and counter claims, surveyor's reports for and against.
I don't pretend to have an intimate knowledge of all the rights and wrongs but, a commentator has left some information which I post verbatim.

Only to say, if you wish to make an official comment to the authorities, you only have until 5th June:


St Winefride's Church: Diocese of Menevia application to demolish the church. Objections to be sent by 5 June, 2013. Quote planning application number (A130337 & A130338CA): Contact Mr Owain Davies Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion Penmorfa Aberaeron Ceredigion UK SA46 0PA Reasons for objections could be:- • Destruction of a historical church within the conservation area in Aberystwyth. • Evidence as given in SAVE report and Barratt reports show that church is structurally sound. • No one has seen the purported Insurance reports mentioned by the diocese that condemn the church. • Serious neglect of the building is the reason for recent fall of roof masonry. • That majority of parishioners want the church to remain central to Aberystwyth and not moved to the outskirts of the town. • A feasible option to develop and refurbish the church and Queen’s Rd site has not been explored fully by the diocese. 

Australia Incognita has a good post on the Woolwich aftermath

Of course, those in authority are taking good care not to make any remarks that could be interpreted as inflammatory; the last thing anyone wishes to see now is recriminatory action or, heaven forbid, copycat actions.

But there is a certain amount of cant in the air. Nick Clegg quoting (selectively) from the Koran.

A great deal of attempting to distance the Muslim faith from this act of barbarity - but, the fact is, in many Muslim countries the authorities themselves dish out barbaric sentences on Christians.

Stoning and flogging are relatively common in Saudi, Nigeria and some of the Gulf States; Islam does have a savage facet and the Koran has passages on both peace and on vengeance against the 'infidel'.

Kate Edwards has a sound post on the subject of Islamic denialism, you may read it HERE

Does the Archbishop know?

A seemingly relatively innocent post regarding a prayer room (Christian) being established at Cardinal Newman School, Hove (where they have a rather beautiful chapel) has extended into the realm of Muslim Prayer Rooms being provided in Catholic Schools.


I must admit, this revelation came as something of a shock to me.

I can see no reason why a Catholic School should provide resources for students of other faiths, especially, Islam which takes such an extreme view on Christian belief and refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, relegating His role to that of a prophet.

Furthermore, many Muslims hold to the belief that the crucifixion was a 'sham' and that Our Lord was involved in a last minute switch resulting in some other poor soul being crucified in His place.

The very essence of Islamic theology is utterly opposed to Catholic doctrinal teaching and whilst, I hold to respecting all other faiths, I do not believe that Catholics should be involved in attending Hindu, Sikh or Muslim ceremonies and certainly, Muslim Prayer Rooms have no place in a Catholic School.

It appears that the invidious spread of this practice is at the behest of lay chaplains and Deacons and, therein lies the crunch.

With all respect to people who hold such positions, they do not have the depth of grounding in theology, philosophy and doctrinal issues that a priest (in theory) has. In fact, I do not believe that we should have 'lay chaplains' at all. This is the province of a priest.

They should not, therefore, be the arbiters of moves to radically adopt tactics that defy Catholic orthodoxy.

That Catholic Schools, or, some of them, appear to have moved into this arena, poses the question: "Does their Archbishop know?"

Or, even: "Does their Headteacher know?"

What is the view of Archbishop Peter Smith on this topic?

Does the Catholic Education Service know of such goings on?

If you feel strongly on this topic, please email the Archbishop of Southwark at this address:

archbishop@rcsouthwark.co.uk 

And, just for the record, I believe that it is in order for Muslim pupils to attend Catholic Schools provided that there is a shortfall of Catholic pupils and places are available.

Going back to my own schooldays (with the aid of some reminiscence therapy), I recall that non Catholic pupils were welcomed on the basis that, by association, they might come to know and love the true Faith.
That seems eminently sensible to me.

Providing them with a prayer room does not.

And, for those folk who belong to the Call for Action group and who appear to have an uninformed sense of Catholic teaching, here is what Our Lord has to say on the matter:

"That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me." (John 17:21)

and, also:

"And other sheep I have that are not of this fold; I must lead them too, and they shall heed my voice.
So there shall be one shepherd and one flock". (John 10: 11-18)

See also: Catholic Schools, Muslim services

Pope Francis on Atheism

We adore You, O Christ, and we bless You, for by Your Holy Cross, You have redeemed the world.

Eveny Lent, during Stations of the Cross, we are reminded that the Lord Jesus redeemed the whole world. All of Creation has been redeemed and He is the Redeemer.

This does not mean that all of humanity will be saved, as if God takes us to Heaven against our own will. The Lord said clearly in the Holy Gospel that the road to eternal life is narrow and 'few be there that find it'.

If a person does good (objective good, rather than paying for an abortion), following conscience consistently, as others have said, he or she will find the One True Catholic Faith, in which the fullness of truth and goodness is communicated to us.

I do not believe the Holy Father has said something that is out of line with the Catholic tradition, but I would understand people saying it is open to a good interpretation or a bad one.

It sounds like the Holy Father is trying to open up a dialogue with atheists - a public 'Court of the Gentiles'. We can meet atheists in doing good and then, while doing good, bear witness to the Author of all that is good, but what we say when we meet them will, we pray, aid their eternal salvation and ours.

I cannot help but think how little Richard Dawkins speaks of the urgent need to 'do good'. All he seems to do is rubbish religious manifestations of 'good works'. I see in the Holy Father's words a rather clever way of approaching atheism, since 'doing good' seems not to be a big part of the atheistic agenda. The starting point of his homily seems to have been that 'doing good is a principle that unites all humanity'.

All this said, it is perhaps not surprising that the liberal press have leapt on the Holy Father's words.

The full homily is here.

Catholic Portugal and Catholic gilt

This is a panorama of just some of the sights of Catholic Portugal (plus a few secular-ish ones).

Here and there I have dedicated a shot to other bloggers whom I admire and whom fit the bill as far as the picture is concerned.

On my left is a slightly fuzzy confessional, it must be used by the more liberal of the brethren.

I have not dedicated this to anyone lest I cause offence and, as you know, I just hate doing that.

It must take a brave soul to confess at this box as there is the capacity for a sinner each side, no more than three feet apart.

Speak softly lest.....

This most beautiful of depictions of Our Lady and the Infant Jesus hangs in the Museum attached to the Church of St Roch (Sao Rocque)
In the centre of Lisbon.

Because of its Eastern influence (or origins) I dedicate it to Fr Athanasius McVay.




And, below, a real nun, a Franciscan Sister of the Immaculate from the Philipines but residing in Italy. God bless her.
                                                               

And, for Mulier Fortis, a cat. What else?

And the grand entrance to the Monastery of
 Sao Geronimo, Belem. A must for anyone visiting Lisbon.

For my good friend, Charlie J, a rather
bling type of chasuble (he likes those)

                                    

                                           And more real nuns! This time at Fatima

How about Schindler's Lift? Silly really.
Dedicated to Catholic and Welsh who
has a similar sense of humour to mine
(I think)

Oh my! No, it's not Eccles and Bosco but a couple
of happy (gay?) bearded turbanned people.
Is that pc enough? From an ex monastery in Sintra

And here are Father Sid and Father Reg.
They are from the Order of Polyesters Rampant

And that's it. I am sorry if I have not included your blog, no offence intended, it's just that I ran out of suitable pics.