Global Catastrophes

Gordon Brown is warning of a global catastophe is we don't do something about climate change. Meanwhile, Hollywood is warning of a global catastrophe which has nothing to do with climate change. Who to believe?! Hollywood, politicians, Hollywood, politicans...Either way, looks like we're shafted! Crikey! If 2012 is anything like the film that could really set back out the parish Building Restoration Fund...



...quite significantly!

"Behold I stand at the door..."

Pilgrims! Forget Fatima, Lourdes and the place in the former Yugoslavia we're not supposed to talk about! Everyone! Over to Ikea in Glasgow!

The manager of Ikea, Glasgow said, "We had no idea the Lord was a minimalist having viewed the abundance of Creation. We're delighted that He has given a Sign that He blesses this Swedish chain of quality, competitively priced furniture."

Alright, he didn't.

St Mary Magdalen Priest Forced to Celebrate Ad Orientem

Henry from St Mary Magdalen's posted this excellent picture of Fr Ray Blake celebrating Mass at the parish on Sunday. At the front you can see the Sanctuary floor being taken up before a new one is layed down this week. In the meantime, Fr Ray was forced to celebrate Mass Ad Orientem. There would have been no room to move on the other side. This picture makes a lot of sense!

Devolution?

According to The Telegraph...

'Men today are the weakest in history and would have been no match for our ancestors in a battle of strength or speed, research suggests.

Peter McAllister, the author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, described today’s males as the “sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet”.

By analysing sets of footprints preserved in a fossilised claypan lake bed, Mr McAllister concluded that Australian aboriginals 20,000 years ago reached speeds of 23mph on soft, muddy ground.

Bolt, by comparison, reached a top speed of 26mph at last year's Beijing Olympics during his then world 100 metres record of 9.69 seconds.

Mr McAllister claims that with modern training, spiked shoes and rubberised tracks, aboriginal hunters might have reached speeds of 28mph - faster than Bolt's record-breaking 100m performance at the World Championships in Berlin this summer.'

How does this square with the 'survival of the fittest' model as proposed by Darwin/Dawkins/Darkins? If men are physically weaker and can't run as fast as they used to be able to run, does that mean man has evolved to be a bit weaker? Is being physically weaker an improvement in the species? Or have we simply evolved to put our feet on the sofa, have a cup of tea and watch Coronation Street?

Did You Know That...

Stephen Fry recently made horrid, awful anti-Polish and anti-Catholic remarks recently basically suggesting that that Polish Catholics were largely to blame for the Holocaust, citing which side of the German border Auschwitz resides. What a scandalous thing to say, given so many Poles met their deaths at the hands of the Nazis and how awfully anti-Catholic of him?

But did you know that the same Stephen Fry is hosting a screening of 'Brief Encounter' near on the South Bank or something, the proceeds of which will go to the Homeless charity, 'The Passage', (oo-er!) which was set up by the late, great Cardinal Basil Hume? I know not everyone thinks he was that great, but I thought he was great having read some of his stuff.

So someone who clearly harbours anti-Catholic or even anti-Polish Catholic resentment is hosting an evening, the proceeds of which go to a Catholic charity. Who is being more charitable here? Stephen Fry? Or Westminster Cathedral? By rights, surely, in the light of his remarks against the Polish Catholic community, a not negligible number of whom live in London, he should be dropped as the host of this charity film fest, even if it is an English classic, or should issue a swift apology for his outburst? Okay, he has done, but I still think the Poles might be rather naffed off with him.

Somebody as intellectually nuanced as Mr Fry should know better than to contaminate history with his anti-Catholicism and colour events according to his prejudices. I always thought he was bigger and better than that. I don't know. I'd be apprehensive meeting Mr Fry. I think he'd eat me for breakfast, intellectually at least, and then ask me whether I'd like any.

England Family in St Therese of Lisieux Heirloom Shock!

Hello.

My dear mum has handed me a small piece of parchment with a beautifully crafted paper rose and painted green stalk. Inside the petals of the pink rose, you lift up the paper petals and there is a little picture of St Therese of Lisieux! Next to it, is, written in pink, a little quote saying, 'I will let fall a shower of roses - St Therese of Lisieux'.

I don't think that we have much Catholic heritage in the family but it is from my mother's side. That St Therese - She gets everywhere! Prisons, churches, non-Catholic households!

286,650

That is the approximate total of the number of pilgrims who flocked to venerate the relics. Not bad for a 'casket of bones' eh?!! One of those who attended was Matthew Parris! Good for you, Mr Parris! Here's a good link to the Papal homily at her Canonisation


Anyway, here, for my friend with a little dog called Raphael is a picture of a chihuahua which I am posting for no apparant reason whatsoever.

Telegraph Pens Opinion Piece on Abortion

Courtesy of The Telegraph

'It is extraordinary that it should have taken a judgment by the Information Tribunal last week to force the Department of Health (DoH) to release the statistics it holds on late abortions. It is also disgraceful. These abortions are alleged sometimes to be performed on what are euphemistically termed "social grounds": not because the mother or the foetus faces a serious risk to health, but because the mother has been advised that the foetus may be born with a feature – such as a cleft palate or a club foot – that she does not wish her child to have.

The information now to be released comprises statistics which are essential for the assessment of whether late abortion is or is not being used in order to ensure that "designer babies" are born. Many people oppose all abortions on principle; many more feel that terminating pregnancies for essentially cosmetic reasons is profoundly wrong, and should not be allowed. It is certainly arguable that the legal grounds for performing abortions after 24 weeks in order to avoid the birth of less-than-perfect babies are extremely dubious under the 1967 Abortion Act. That Act licenses terminations up until birth if there is a substantial risk that the baby will be born with a "serious" physical or mental abnormality. But it is not easy to see how anyone can maintain that a club foot or a cleft palate, however distressing it may be, counts as a "serious" abnormality under the Act.

Rather than have an open debate over the merits of the practice of "cosmetic" late abortions, the department evidently decided that the easiest way to ensure that its own view prevailed was simply to withhold details of the number of such terminations taking place. It was an extremely cynical move: the Government clearly approves of the controversial late abortions, but rather than justify its stance, it made debate impossible by depriving the public of information which is critical to it.

The grounds which the DoH has provided for its decision are so clearly spurious that it is astonishing that they should have been put forward, never mind been used to block the publication of the relevant data for six years. The department's lawyers have claimed that releasing the statistics might cause "mental distress or harm" to vulnerable women. Even if that were true, it would not necessarily be a reason for keeping the data secret: material from inquests, and from ordinary criminal trials, can certainly be distressing to some people, particularly relatives of the victim, but no one thinks that is a reason for stopping inquests or trials from being held in public.

But it is blatantly false that the release of the late abortion data need cause mental harm and distress to anyone. It should be fully anonymised, so as not to reveal the personal details of anyone involved, whether it be the doctors or the mothers. Up until 2002, when opponents of late abortion began to campaign against the practice, the statistics were published. No one was harmed. The DoH's use of the bogus claim that the data could cause harm illustrates that the basis of their case is not protecting privacy or safety, but their desire to keep the issue out of public discussion.

The ProLife Alliance and its barrister Paul Diamond are to be congratulated on taking the matter to the Information Tribunal, and winning. We hope now, finally, that there will be an open debate on the merits of late abortions – and we deeply deplore the Government's dogged attempts to prevent one.'