A Taster!

A recently married couple from the parish of St Mary Magdalen have returned from honeymoon in Italy and managed to be present at a Papal Audience at Castel Gandolfo.

Not long to go now, chaps and chapesses!

Long live Pope Benedict XVI! We can't wait for you to arrive! We love you, Holy Father!

"Pope Benedict! Ordain Cats Now!"

An image of a 'Pussy Priesthood' of the Future?

A coalition of animal rights groups have formed an umbrella organisation entitled Cats for Ordination Now! With the Church suffering a declining Priesthood, the organisation are beginning to ask the Church to paws for thought and ask the question: 'Is it time for cats to be ordained?'

In the wake of a similar campaign by radical feminists within the Church seeking equality on the Altar, leading to a series of poster advertisements on London buses, the new campaign supporting the rights of feline priests is gathering apace.


A spokesman for the umbrella organisation, Ms Susie Kittylove yesterday said...

"After years on the sidelines and receiving little in terms of public recognition, the rights of our feline brothers and, indeed, sisters have been neglected within the Church. It is high time that cats moved from the rectory and the Priest's house, into the Church, leading the Faithful in ministry and in service to God in offering the Mass for a Church with a new vision for the 21st century."

An adviser to a senior Cardinal in the Vatican has defended the Catholic Church's position on a 'male, human only' policy for ordination to the Priesthood and when asked whether the Church was just a whisker away from moggy ministry, he replied...

 "Sacramentally speaking, and in terms of the Apostolic tradition of the Church, it needs to be repeated, once more, that neither the Church nor the Pope can change the rule. The Church has as much right to confer ordination on a cat as it does on a woman."

One prominent Archbishop in England, however, steadfastly refused to be drawn on the issue, distancing himself from the comments made by the adviser to the Cardinal at the Vatican. When asked, in the wake of rebuttal from Rome, of his own views on whether, in the future, the Church may ordain cats, he replied, "Well, I don't know. Who knows whats down the road?"


"Hopefully a speeding car", was the answer of a traditionalist Priest in the South of England. One Pro-pussy Priest campaigner in Norwich, however, has hinted that the hierarchy in England and Wales's refusal to condemn the campaign could mean that within the local Church it is being considered and that the campaign has garnered some latent enthusiasm, if not yet open support. Ms Candy Littertray said...

"This is an exciting development and interesting times to be a cat within the Church. It sounds of a case of 'maybe not meow, but one day'."

Caterry Pipsinister, Editrix of liberal Catolic magazine, The Tabbielet, has promised to devote a full length feature in next weeks issue.

Groggy Rides Again

I have no movies I wish to review today (screw 500 Days of Summer) so I'll regale you with some egregious self-promotion, as I kick-off the third and final installment in the Groggy Dundee Trilogy:



Well, chin-chin. Do carry on with your mudpies, dear readers. Hopefully there'll be something substantiative tomorrow or Monday.

Choose Your Missiles Wisely

According to The Telegraph, Tony Blair has been pelted with shoes and eggs in Dublin, where he was today promoting his memoirs.

'The former prime minister was heckled and jeered by anti-war protesters at his first book signing in the city’s O’Connell Street.'

Why shoes and eggs? The guys loaded! He's got enough money to buy shoes and eggs!

What he needs if the Penny Catechism. Come on Dubliners! Think about it! For a man whose views are so add odds with Catholic Teaching, let's face it, the Penny Catechism is priceless.

The Man Who Would Be King

Among the last of the old-fashioned adventure films, John Huston's The Man Who Would Be King (1975) is a boatload of fun. An adaptation of a Rudyard Kipling story, King is a perfect mixture of traditional irreverence and post-modern cynicism, and its director and larger-than-life stars invest the story with wit, charm and muscular verve.

India at the height of the British Raj. A pair of ex-soldiers, Freemasons, vagabonds and petty crooks - Daniel Dravot (Sean Connery) and Peachy Carnahan (Michael Caine) - graduate from petty blackmail and gun-running to a far more ambitious scheme: to trek to distant Kafiristan, "land of two and thirty idols," establish their own private empire and amass a mighty fortune. They persuade an incredulous Rudyard Kipling (Christopher Plummer), a fellow Freemason, to help set their scheme in motion. The duo miraculously make it to Kafiristan, and begin playing local tribes against one another to advance their own ends. After a "miraculous" battlefield incident, Dravot is mistaken for the reincarnation of Alexander the Great, and is instated as a living God in the holy city of Sikandergul. Dravot and Carnahan are only too happy to oblige, but their plan goes awry when Dravot starts believe he is Alexander.

Huston's film is an interesting companion piece to John Milius's The Wind and the Lion, released the same year with the same star by the same studio (Huston even cameos in the latter). While Milius all but endorses imperialism, Huston casts a more cynical eye on "the White Man's Burden." Danny and Peachy's operation serves as a textbook primer for aspiring imperialists: play on a country's internal divisions, usurp local customs, establish yourself on top and rob your subjects blind. Of course, their scheme ultimately unravels as Danny dreams of building Kafiristan into a modern state. His defying the local Gods and marriage to an unwilling "mortal" (Shakira Caine, wife of Michael) turn away the credulous but suspcious natives: however good the intentions, some cultures don't want to be "civilized," especially by arrogant outsiders with little respect for them.

However, The Man Who Would Be King is no anti-imperial screed. Huston keeps his tongue firmly in cheek, cheerfully reviving the matinee fun of Gunga Din with dashing heroes, exotic locales and rousing action scenes. The casual racism of '30s epics (and Kipling's own work) is played for laughs: audiences uncomfortable with such movies will find this playful subversion a treat. Our heroes are a marvellous pair of charming rogues, charismatic and cunning, endlessly chipper ("If a Greek can do it, we can do it!"), devious and greedy yet heroic in their own way. Aided by an endlessly witty and quotable script (not to mention Sean Connery and Michael Caine), Danny and Peachy earn our affection, if not our admiration. It may not be high art, and its narrative is a bit simplistic at times, but as well-crafted, intelligent escapism King hard to beat.

The movie is beautiful to look at. Morocco is a more-than-adequate stand-in for Central Asia and Huston gives it a perfect sense of scope, with its heroes trekking through crowded Indian slums, arid desert and freezing mountains. The pacing is a bit uneven: Huston is content to linger on exposition and spectacle while turning long stretches of action into elliptical montages. This is a minor complaint all things concerned, however. Maurice Jarre contributes a fine score, more understated than much of his work but capturing the right note of high adventure.

Sean Connery and Michael Caine are a dream pair: each are at the top of their game, comporting themselves with pitch-perfect chemistry, charm and wit. For Connery in particular, it's a career high-water mark: between this and The Wind and the Lion, he was finally able to shed the James Bond persona and become a star in his own right. Christopher Plummer (The Night of the Generals) is a spot-on Kipling though he has little to do with the main story. Saeed Jaffrey (A Passage to India) essays a charming supporting role as the protagonists' Gurkha sidekick.

When it comes to 1975 adventure films starring Sean Connery, I probably prefer The Wind and the Lion for sentimental reasons. But it's hard to argue with The Man Who Would Be King, which stands on its own as a fine entry in a long-lost genre.

Seditious Material

I know that I am retreading ground walked upon already by other Catholic bloggers, but a commenter, Pelerin, just posted a comment on the post below informing us that The Tablet is still for sale at Westminster Cathedral.

Westminster Cathedral is the mother-Church of England and Wales. Yet, consistently, the Cathedral sells a magazine which seemingly week in, week out, presents the Catholic Faith in a way that appears determined to undermine the authority of Pope Benedict XVI, challenges Church Teaching and acts as a mouthpiece for dissident Catholics opposed to the Magisterium and Holy Tradition of the Church. 

Many of the contributions to the magazine, as well as the editorial team and, as we have seen from Tina Beatty, the trustees, are radicals who, far from defending the Faith, seek to knock some of the most basic and fundamental tenets of Catholicism from their axis.

While content to publicly deride the efforts of traditional Catholic Priests, as was seen when Fr Tim Finigan and his parish in Blackfen was dragged through the mud, and while only too happy to discuss issues such as the ordination of women priests as if 'the gals' were printing the outcomes of their latest pub discussions, critiques or analysis of, say, the lack of leadership and the lack of a strong Catholic identity from the Bishops of England and Wales are not so forthcoming. While the Successors of the Apostles have received criticism from the dazzling array of impressive Catholic blogs that continuously spring up nearly every month like water in Lourdes, senior figures in the Church in England and Wales are, when you read The Tablet, seemingly untouchable.

Much of the content, in terms of the defense of the Catholic Faith, the Magisterium and the Successor of St Peter is, quite perversely and often bizarrely seditious. It simply oozes dissent from Church Teaching and more than one parish Priest in England has banned it outright from their parish for this reason alone. It really makes you wonder. If a few people got together with some investment from benefactors and started up a magazine which sought to lance the carbuncle that is The Tablet with fresh writers loyal to the Holy Father and to the Magisterium, a magazine which did not shy away from voicing opinions which are offensive to the Successors of the Apostles, rather than the Successor of St Peter, would Westminster Cathedral stock it and sell it? Somehow, I doubt it. The Tablet has something of a monopoly on the Catholic magazine (rather than the Catholic newspaper) for sale at the back of the Church but that really, really isn't on.

The Catholic Church in England and Wales evidently has a wealth of Catholic writers who are chomping at the bit to voice truly Catholic opinions, rather than feminist opinions, or Marxist opinions, or other ideologically-entrenched opinions that fly in the face of both the spirit of obedience to the Magisterium and the spirit of Christianity itself altogether.

Adherents of the One True Faith, the "creative minority" talked about by Pope Benedict XVI are perhaps a minority even within the Church Herself. While that is a cause for sorrow at The Tablet's dominance, the quality of Catholic blogs and their author's explanations and defenses of the Catholic Faith are a sign of hope for the Faithful who have for a long time felt like they are living in a ghetto. It is high time we got out of the ghetto and preached the Gospel to men and women in the pews, because, as many of us know, we are living in a time in which the Faith is not being taught throughout England and Wales with passion, with zeal for souls and with love for God and His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a time in which heresy is unchallenged by 'not just laity but a veritable army of Priests and Bishops'.

I know that the internet is, as Pope Benedict XVI has already made clear, a wonderful way of communicating the Gospel to the Church and the World, but, wouldn't it be nice if Catholics who pray that they will be 'faithful unto death', rather than faithful until reading The Tablet, could have a truly Catholic magazine to take home after Mass?

Just a thought...

Archbishop Vincent Nichols Distances Himself from the Truth

The UK: A moral 'wasteland'

What do you call a country in which abortion rates average around 200,000 a year?

What do you call a country in which abortion inducing pills are as available as sweets?

What do you call a country that deliberately undermines Marriage and encourages divorce?

What do you call a country that actively promotes homosexual behaviour?

What do you call a country that promotes policies that encourage the persecution of the poor and vulnerable?

What do you call a country that far from being able to bring itself to condemn vice, condemns those who do so?

Well, you call that country the United Kingdom. Edmund Adamu, a senior adviser to Archbishop Vincent Nichols has eloquently described the moral condition of the United Kingdom and he has caught the headlines, describing the UK as...

"A selfish, hedonistic wasteland" and "the geopolitical epicentre of the culture of death".

Unfortunately, what has also caught the headlines is that the man he advises, the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, has distanced himself from the comments of his adviser. According to The Guardian, a spokesman for the Archbishop said 'the views expressed by Adamus...

"Did not reflect the Archbishop's opinions".

I would love to know, what does Archbishop Vincent Nichols think about the moral condition of the United Kingdom? I mean, without wishing to sound out of turn, the British public do kind of expect and certainly faithful Catholics expect senior clergy and Church hierarchy to bewail the moral morass in which the nation finds itself through the sin and selfishness of its citizens. It is, as we know, a Work of Mercy to correct sinners and instruct the ignorant and yes, we all need correcting and instructing, but how much this country needs the Gospel! People who watch on the TV or read the newspapers might think or say, "...I can't stand the Church with its constant moralising...bastards...", but really, come on! A Church that is not constantly moralising and teaching the Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ is barely a Church at all! Where are the Catholic Voices!? What has happened to them and more importantly, what has happened to the voices of our Shepherds!?

Playing it safe and keeping schtum about national and individual vice, which creates countless casualties, will not win converts, save souls, bring the lapsed home or even gain the Catholic Church a modicum of credibility. It really is not fair of the Archbishop to "distance himself" from these strikingly bold statements. It is not fair on the Church Militant as a whole, the brave and vocal Priests and, indeed, Laity, or any faithful Catholic, to leave the proclamation of unpopular truths to them and run and duck for cover when difficult questions are asked. Moreover, it is certainly grossly unjust to leave the proclamation of these unpopular truths to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI! As the Successor of St Peter, he is, by his very Office, the man in the Church who arouses the most suspicion, derision and anger in the UK.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols

Because Pope Benedict XVI is faithful to his duty, as the Successor of St Peter, to remind nations of the huge cost of our Redemption, warn the World of the horror of sin and urge men and women to repentance and to follow Christ, the Holy Father will doubtless, during his visit, draw vast criticism from the ungodly and take it upon himself. He is Peter who 'strengthens the brethren'. Please, Bishops of England and Wales, make an effort to strengthen him so that his is not the lone voice in the wilderness, the wasteland! Please, dear Bishops, accept a share in the humiliations and sufferings of your Pope, our Pope, Christ's Vicar on Earth! Be willing to accept the derision of the populace! Our Blessed Lord is with His Church until the End of Time and has told us that the names of those who endure persecution for the sake of Christ and His Gospel are written in Heaven! Keeping silence when justice, and the just, are mocked simply will not do!

According to The Independent, which, let's face it, when it comes to Catholicism is about as 'independent' as the Orange Order preparing to march through Belfast, 'Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall, said Mr Adamus's comments would do little to foster a healthy atmosphere for the Pope's visit.'

"Of course the Pope should visit Britain. But the gratuitously offensive comments being made by the Archbishop's adviser are hardly likely to promote sensitive debate about respect for religion in the 21st century. You would think that, given its present status, the Roman Catholic Church in Britain would be slightly more sensitive about wagging its finger at other people," he said.

In other words..."Stop wagging your fingers at us, you bunch of paedos and paedo cover-uppers! Queer bashers!"

What Ben is not seeing, or is perhaps able to see, is that when individuals in the Church are guilty of crimes against the child, or indeed any grave and serious scandal, or when it is revealed that other reckless individuals covered-up those scandals, the whole Church, led by Pope Benedict XVI, condemns those actions outright, implores God's mercy for those who abused the trust given them, prays for the healing of those victims and urges the whole Church to do reparation and deepen their respect and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

'Gay Rights Campaigner', Peter Tatchell

This is in stark contrast to groups like Stonewall, who not only applaud and promote homosexual activity but have, in Peter Tatchell, someone who wishes to lower the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex to 14. Hmm...What is it with the militant gay community and the desire to see the potential option of having sex with 14-year-old boys become enshrined in legislation?! The Church condemns both homosexual acts and crimes against the child. Both happen to be sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance. Stonewall, on the other hand, condemn the Church while promoting homosexual activity and policies that leave minors wide open to sexual coercion and, indeed, sexual abuse!

Of course, in Tatchell's language, these are 14-year-old's "sexual rights" we're talking about here! How convenient! Adults proposing and drafting new "sexual rights" for children! Obviously, the kids are crying out for this, because we see hoardes of 14-year-olds, just coming to terms with their changing bodies, in their school uniforms, with their packed lunches, marching down the street annually after double maths for the right to gay sex don't we!? Face it, Ben. You may believe that children are not safe in the hands of the Church and you can believe that if you choose, but I can't see for the life of me how children are safe in the hands of Stonewall!