The Most Threatening Thing to Stonewall

A pledge for modern Catholics?

There is much written about how so many Catholics today have either forgotten the basic facts of the Faith or consciously erased them from memory.

                                               Body of Christ, not bread

Attend any Mass in Great Britain and the chances are that you will see blatant disregard for the normal proprietaries of behaviour when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

The major breaches of protocol for me are the loud chatterings before Mass, no genuflections, strolling across the sanctuary with no regard for dress or manner and a general air of disinterest.

What is that symptomatic of?

A loss of belief in the True Presence, a disregard for the authority of the Holy Father and ignorance of the teachings of Christ.

So, just as we have a renewal of our Baptismal vows why not instigate an annual renewal of our "Faith" in the form of a pledge of obedience.

Who would not wish to align themselves with Church teaching and the Holy Father by the annual renewal of their "Faith" vows?

This is my stab at how they might appear:

"I pledge my belief that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine.

I believe in the authority of the Holy Father (Pope Benedict XVI) and undertake to follow his guidance and counsel at all times.

I undertake to always give due reverence when in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament whether revealed or in the tabernacle.

I remember that this church is, at all times, the House of Almighty God and must be treated as such"

Hmm, I know we say as much in the Credo each week but by renewing this on a once a year basis maybe, just maybe, it would impact on the masses - and the Masses.

Schools and Same-Sex Marriage

The SPUC Anthony Ozimic's apperance on This Morning has caused a stir in the marriage debate, both within Catholic new media circles and doubtless in the so called "equal marriage" camp. Generally, I think Anthony did very well in a heated debate which left him facing three opponents, instead of the one opponent discussion which was meant to be overseen by two impartial television presenters.

Opinion appears divided over the approach that Anthony took on the range of issues forcefully and emotionally presented to him. Some commentators have described Anthony's approach to the issue as the right one, while one Catholic commentator on Twitter described the debate as a 'train crash'. This is somewhat unfair, I think, and given that Anthony single-handedly, against three opponents, reduced public support in the live opinion poll for same-sex marriage to be taught in school by 20%, quite untrue.

This debate is highly charged - since we are now such a highly charged and hyper-sexualised country - and the language being used is so emotionally loaded. Anthony was accused, in what is now the most consistently employed gay lobby truth missile defense system, of 'homophobia'.

Is Anthony 'homophobic'? I really doubt it, but, that said, one Catholic I know who has same-sex attraction reacted very angrily to the interview yesterday. As well as mounting a 'homophobic' attack on 'gay marriage' and it being taught in schools, Anthony's crime appears to be one of 'pathologising' homosexuality. I personally found Anthony's approach to the issue refreshing precisely because he refused to buy into or accept any part of the LGBT campaign's propaganda.

In refusing to do this - by asserting that there is something 'not normal' or disordered or even unhealthy about homosexuality, Anthony was able to do the one thing that people at home who are uncomfortable with the LGBT agenda feel unable to do - that is - he spoke his mind. He refused to take this issue on the terms presented by the media and also refused to publicly accept the sacred cows so cherished by the LGBT brigade.

Assessing homosexuality as something that is plausibly linked to issues grounded in childhood development, environment and psychology, rather than genetic or necessarily 'chromosomal' factors, may be an avenue that Anthony did not have to explore, nor perhaps the particular angle from which the Church comes from, or even an argument grounded in natural law.

Anthony's defense, however, was a defence mounted in defence of children. The Catholic Church states quite clearly that homosexuality is a disorder of the natural sexual state. Why should we not explore the possible reasons as to why a child may grow up into an adult with a disorder of the natural sexual state and find himself only able to form sexual relationships with members of the same-sex? Are we saying that there is a whole field of psychological enquiry which has been closed off? Who closed it off? Was it closed off by 'Peer Review'? Are 'Peer Reviews' infallible documents or could it b,e that on the subject of homosexuality, enquiry into this was called off because the liberal, taboo-smashing orthodoxy requires consensus of psychiactric opinion?

Personal experience

I'll be quite frank. I continue to live a life with what the Church, more helpfully and dispassionately describes as 'same-sex attraction'. This, I whole heartedly accept to be a disorder. The very phrase, 'same-sex attraction' itself is more helpful to understanding ourselves than 'gay' - a term which was robbed by the 'gay community' from the English dictionary and distorted to fit their political and frankly Marxist agenda.

My experience of homosexuality or same-sex attraction is that it developed in childhood. My first sexual experience was with another boy at about the age of 9, though I cannot recall the exact age. This person shall of course remain nameless. This experience, however, was initiated by him. It then came to pass that an older boy of around 14, known to me and the boy, took me to a wood and got me to hold his private parts and do things 'for him'. Looking back, this was some kind of abuse encounter. I was very young and impressionable.

Secondly, I found it difficult to form a strong relationship with my father. At the same time, I had a very close relationship with my mother. It so happens that most homosexuals I have encountered, in which I mean 'met', as well as myself, have had distinct 'father' issues. One I know, actively despises his own father. Another clearly never had one. Another cannot forgive his father for what his father did to his mother. Another, his father was never at home because he was always at work and meetings. Whenever I have met a homosexual, I have picked up the distinct impression that this individual has either no bond or a severed bond or only partial bond with father. I don't have a psychology degree, but just looking at my own sexual formation and that of others I know, does it not make perfect rational sense for a child with no father bond to seek bonding with a man he is perpetually searching for?

Thirdly, if there is one psychological disorder prevalent in the gay community (indeed rampant throughout society), it is the psychological disorder of narcissism. I'll be frank, I have this disorder too. Anyone who blogs as much as me must think rather highly of himself that his thoughts are so valuable they must be posted extremely regularly. Indeed, the age in which we live (Facebook, Twitter, fashion, trends etc) actively encourages this most pernicious of disorders.

Self-glorification, self-worship, even, is elevated to an astonishing degree, to the detriment of the health of family, society and indeed the individual. It is a "me, me, me" age. The brazen selfishness and self-obsession of the political gay lobby, indeed, is the very reason why all of society is now being ordered to usher in an age and a Brave New World at that in which the family is to be re-ordered so that their unjustified wrath may be appeased and the unnatural unit of two men and a baby is to be seen as equal to the natural family unit of man and woman and children.

The Rainbow: Policy is being made through an LGBT Prism

This is what, in fact, lies at the heart of the marriage debate - a debate taking place only because the LGBT community have launched an astonishing attack on the institution of marriage by insisting that, by some intrinsic right created out of nowhere, this institution that comes about through the union of man and woman belongs equally also to them. The truth of course is that it belongs to the whole society and uniquely to those who enter into it in order to unite two complementary, but uniquely different, genders. Man and woman. Nobody is excluded by the institution of marriage. Men and women are both catered for. The only people not catered for by the institution of marriage are those who refuse, either willingly or unwillingly, to unite with a person of the opposite sex for the procreation of children.

Public policy is now being made through an LGBT prism. That's why there are rainbows everwhere. Everything in the LGBT world is seen through a prism of self - even a prison of self - that ignores, holds in contempt or esteems as of trifling importance those natural bonds of love that every civilization has valued.

Marriage is one of these natural bonds, for marriage is a natural institution. Another is motherhood - a widely disparaged vocation. Another is fatherhood and the bond between father and son. Another is grand-parenthood and the role of extended family.

The LGBT lobby, in truth, will never be happy - another word for 'gay' - even if society, Church and State should bend over backwards to give it all that this voracious lobby requires. Why? Because the truth is that the LGBT lobby present to the nation, to families and to children a philosophy regarding sexuality in which slavery is promoted. What is this slavery? It is the slavery of sin and the slavery of the self and of the fulfillment of selfish desires that refuse to respect the role and purpose of sexuality and sexual expression for children, for family and and society.

In truth, this vision of sex for purely pleasurable and selfish reasons in terms of homosexuality is merely an extension of what is already taught widely in schools - that sex has no objective moral dimension or purpose - and that neither does marriage. This is what Anthony Ozimic was talking about in terms of giving children an education that respects the authentic and only good vision of human sexuality, life and love. Marriage is about liberty - not licence. The family is about liberty - not licence. Love is about liberty - not licence. Those who distort the meanings of love, family and marriage do so in order to suit their own licentious ends and end up making prisoners of themselves and, in turn, the rest of the society who refuses to be slaves to their own disordered sexual desires.

Real slavery is the slavery of the self

The Divine Founder of the Catholic Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ, said, 'The truth will set you free'. What is the Truth? The Truth is Jesus Christ, the Way and the Truth and the Life. What is 'free'? To be free is to be free from the tyranny of selfishness, the prison of self-love or even self-worship, in order to love God, to love your neighbour, to love Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother and His Church even unto the shedding of your own blood. To be a slave of Jesus Christ is to be free. To be a slave or a hostage to sin and to the Devil is to be forever in chains.

The primary reason why children should not be taught about same-sex marriage in schools is that it is not primarily the responsibiliy of the State to give children the moral formation and moral education that is the duty and right of parents. It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with a new and wholly untested vision of human sexuality, love and marriage.

It is not to the State to indoctrinate children with its own vision of such matters which run entirely contrary to the natural law. This is the duty and right of parents. It is not just the rights of children to be given an authentic vision of human sexuality and love in school that are under attack. It is the rights of parents and, in particular, any parent who objects to this kind of education.

Indeed, at one point in the discussion, the presenter asks Anthony to descibe the 'lifestyles' and 'practices' of homosexuality. For some reason, Anthony felt unable to do this. Is this, perhaps, because the practices and lifestyles associated with homosexuality are not suitable subject matter for daytime TV? Perhaps Anthony should have mentioned fisting, mutual masturbation, rimming, sodomy and the rest and just let the complaints from those at home fly in. Then he could have said, "....and this is what Stonewall and the Terrence Higgins Trust want to be taught in your child's school. Oh, but don't worry, because all such behaviours are perfectly 'normal' and 'healthy', despite the fact that HIV claims many gay men's lives and rates of HPV are so bad in gay men that there are calls for 'vaccinations'.

My own experience of being a man with same-sex attraction may have been heavily influenced by being exposed to homosexuality at a very tender age. The event with an older boy was deeply distressing and its something I rather not think about because I realise that it was, fundamentally, child abuse. Teaching about homosexuality in schools is a recipe for the exact same events to be promoted and replayed in every school up and down the land.

Do parents want this kind of education for their children?

So, I ask parents of the United Kingdom:

1. Is this what you want for your child?
2. Do you want your 8-year-old son to be abused by an older child, having been encouraged to sexually experiment by the teachers you thought were there for your child's education and protection?
3. Do you want your impressionable cherub experimenting sexually with any other children?
4. Do you want the State to be the moral educator of your children or would you rather do this yourself?
5. If much of what consists of gay literature is so offensive that it cannot be discussed on daytime TV, then in what sense is it suitable for your child in a school setting? 

Before you make up your mind, do have a look at the substance, if not the precise material, of what the Terrence Higgins Trust actually wish to promote in schools.

If it is not what you want for your child and you do not want your Government to enshrine into legislation law that will promote child abuse, wake up, get off the fence, stop pandering to the dogma of political correctness and do everything you can to oppose the Government's redefinition of marriage, because time is short and the Devil never sleeps.

Sapphire

Basil Dearden and Michael Relph worked together at Ealing Studios in the 1940s before moving onto tough-minded dramas like The League of Gentlemen (1960) and Victim (1961). Sapphire (1959) is one of their earliest films in this mold, using a murder mystery to explore racial tension in postwar London.

College girl Sapphire Robbins (Yvonne Buckingham) is murdered, her body dumped on Hampstead Heath. Police Superintendent Hazard (Nigel Patrick) discovers two disconcerting facts: one, that's she's pregnant; two, that's she mixed race passing for white. Hazard's investigation hits a snag, as Sapphire's fiance (Paul Massie) provides little information and his family (Bernard Miles and Yvonne Mitchell) positively hostile. Sapphire disowned her black friends, including resentful ex-lovers Paul Slade (Gordon Heath) and Johnny Fiddle (Harry Baird), but couldn't fit into white society either. Hazard and his partner (Michael Craig) must navigate a web of prejudice and deceit to uncover the culprit.

Sapphire comes packaged as a socially aware whodunnit. Dearden and writer Janet Green keep the mystery with a large pool of suspects and a twisty plot. Dearden's direction is assured, mixing creative set pieces (Johnny Fiddle's escape from a bar) with a vibrant color pallet unique amongst his black-and-white films. Most interesting is the way Dearden triggersthe villain's confession. Philip Green's wonderful jazz score is another highpoint. Even those disinterested in racial politics can enjoy Sapphire as a well-constructed mystery.

Nonetheless, Sapphire is very much a topical drama. After World War II, London experienced massive emigration from the West Indies, India and other former colonies. This led to white backlash and racial tension, culminating in the 1958 Notting Hill Riots. Sapphire taps into this post-empire anxiety, whites and blacks aghast at the very idea of a "colored" girl blending in to both worlds.

Sapphire avoids stereotyping. The black characters are a mix of types: Dr. Robbins is well-spoken and likeable, contrasted with criminals Johnny and Horace (Robert Adams). Slade proves the most interesting, an arrogant barrister who views Hazard's tolerance as condescension. Whites deny prejudice but only Hazard and David seem sincere. Sapphire's landlady refuses black tenants while David's parents seethe with scarce-concealed bigotry. Even Sapphire's white friends obsess about "image" - like Sapphire herself, disowning her International Club mates by "passing" for white.

Sapphire isn't free of preaching. Hazard provides several position speeches as insightful as Crossfire's childish explication of antisemitism. These lectures seem condescending to modern ears. Dearden's more honest in showing how deeply racism poisons society. Robbins' best scene explains a how simple childhood incident instilled a distrust of whites. Even after the investigation wraps, Hazard notes that deeper social problems can't be so easily solved.

Nigel Patrick (Pandora and the Flying Dutchman) makes a likeable investigator, with Michael Craig as his less-enlightened partner. Earl Cameron was a regular in British race relations movies, appearing in Simba, Flame in the Streets and Guns at Batasi among others. Gordon Heath (Lost Command) and Harry Baird play murder suspects. Bernard Miles (In Which We Serve), Paul Massie and Yvonne Mitchell are the white family at investigation's center. Cult icon Barbara Steele (Black Sunday) appears as one of Sapphire's friends.

Sapphire holds up fairly well today. While it proves less simplistic than American issue films, it works best as a detective story.

What's with this bowing business?

                              Only to be found in a salvage yard, not in a church

I rarely (if ever) attend a Mass in the Ordinary Form so, on the odd occasion when I arrive at a church to attend Sunday Mass and find an OF in progress, I observe with increasing amazement.

It was after the 'excommunications' back in 1988 that my wife and I took the decision to withdraw from what was then the Novus Ordo.

It, or rather the circus acts that accompanied it, was disaffecting our children and I could not answer their questions as to why the priest insisted on sitting down throughout the Mass with half a dozen small children sitting on his lap, yes, really.
Or why we no longer knelt to receive Holy Communion from a priest but queued to receive standing from a lay person.

Or why my wife and I constantly had to re-brief the children on what the priest meant in his sermon when he said that all Catholics should, as a matter of conscience, vote Labour or when he continually referred to the teachings of Gandhi.

And now, I find that what I witness at an OF Mass really bears little resemblance, in any shape or form, to the OF and EF Masses we attended pre 1986.

Above all else there is the total lack of reverence. You could be sitting in a pub if you closed your eyes and listened to the clamour around you.

With the destruction of the communion rails came a total disregard for the Body and Blood of Christ truly present on the sanctuary; the barrier that provided a dividing line between the profane and the sacred was gone and with it vanished all the inhibitions of reverence.

It seems to me that all sorts of odd bodies wander on and off the sanctuary before Mass as if it's a sort of circus arena that requires the tables and chairs laid out in readiness for the clowns to appear.

Above all else, what I notice more than anything, is the disappearance of the genuflection.

No one, priest, nun or layman, bends their knee any longer when they cross in front of the tabernacle.

Why?

I know why.

 It is because they no longer believe that the Son of God is present in the form of bread in the tabernacle.

Holy Communion has become an unholy reunion when they adopt the Protestant theology of it being an occasion of remembrance rather than of commemoration. How sad.


And when they do cross the aisle or sanctuary, they bow, and it's an awful sort of an apology of a bow, a bob of the head, a nod and a wink. 

Give them a few more years and the bow will have disappeared also and all and sundry will stroll around, hands in pockets, gum in mouth.

                      The Japanese know how to bow, maybe a few lessons are needed

Muslim vigilantes arrested

Following recent coverage of Muslim males invoking Sharia Law on the streets of London, two men have been arrested under suspicion of public order offences and have been bailed while further investigations take place.

                            "Do not dress like that in a Muslim area"

 Their actions have been described as 'homophobic' by the various homosexual organisations but this is only partly true. The alleged accused are also heard quite clearly demanding that passers by carrying alcohol should pour it down the drain and some did, in fact, comply.

They can also be heard demanding that women should observe the dress code of some Muslim females and "cover up".

I do not think that any group whether Catholic, Jewish or, even, homosexual, should take  pride in claiming that they were a target under these circumstances.

Precisely 100 years ago my own parents were stoned routinely (also in the East End of London) when they took part in the May processions with other parishioners of St Margaret's, Canning Town. Their attackers were, in the main, Orangemen but my parents were always at pains to dismiss lightly such assaults.

We should have little difficulty in dismissing the vigilante activity of a few Islamic fundamentalists except that, there is a growing undercurrent of unrest in the Muslim communities across Europe.

In the past 12 months there has been a spate of attacks on Catholic churches and events in France and Spain and this will, undoubtedly, spread to Britain.

What to do?

The Government needs to get some backbone and provide a service to the  mosques that counsels, educates and informs young Muslim men and women, as to the rights and wrongs of Islam and the social structures of the west and respect and tolerance for those of other faiths.

That would be a start.

Survival of the Fittest

David Attenborough's views helped us to abandon our homeless project

I volunteered last night for a homeless shelter project in Brighton. With three other Catholics, I manned a night shift at a night shelter scheme in conjunction with other Brighton and Hove Churches.

We were flicking through the newspapers and read the David Attenborough article about population, climate change and poverty.

Having read the Royal Society fellow's analysis of the world's problems, we soon thought better of our so called 'charitable' work of sheltering the homeless and decided it best we throw them out onto the street and into the snow.

I mean, what is the point in making provision and sacrificing personal time and sleep in order just to preserve these people's lives? It's not rational to intervene in nature and defend them, is it? Why not just let nature take its course, surely? These people are not economically productive. They don't work, do they? What are they contributing to society? Are they paying taxes? There are so many homeless and economically 'unfit' people in Brighton, one wonders whether they are some kind of plague upon Brighton and Hove. It's anti-Darwinian after all and surely against reason to care for them. What is their purpose?

 

After the homeless vacated the building, the games began!

So, we told them all to sling their hooks, kicked them into the street and stayed up until late playing poker in the cosy and warm. One of them left his fags behind, but that was his fault, so we smoked them all. I do hope nobody gives him any money to buy more because he'll only spend it on drugs and drink. But don't worry, readers. Before we threw them out into the snow, we temporarily sterilised them while they were sleeping in order to limit population. Some people say what we did was "mean" or "heartless", some even "downright evil", but Attenborough's view of the world helped to change our view on matters of population, climate change and especially poverty.

For a while, we talked about 'What would Jesus and Mary do?' in this situation, but in the end there were enough heretics in the team of volunteers to decide that Jesus would do whatever a successful and wealthy nature documentary maker and climate activist would do, because the man Jesus was just a really nice guy who cared about animals, population growth and the environment - just like St Francis of Assisi.

So thank you, David Attenborough, for helping us to see what a drain on the economy and on natural resources these feckless homeless people were. We would like to have gone one step further and shot each one of them in the head so that we reduced the number of homeless in Brighton - a sure shot way of reducing poverty - but obviously that would have got us into trouble with the law.

David mixes with some furry fellow friends at the Royal Society

In the end, thanks to David's clear and concise analysis of global poverty and population, we have abandoned the homeless night shelter and left the homeless men we were sheltering to die of exposure in freezing temperatures due to Council indifference.

Part of me thinks what we have done is 'wrong' - a feeling I can't quite shake - but I know the man who hangs around with monkeys and other ape friends, especially at the Royal Society, has to be right, because, after all, he's on the telly. The reduction in carbon emissions due to our humane intervention could just save an ice shelf in the Antarctic. I mean - well - it could if everyone made a combined effort to rid the world of homelessness once and for all and a sustainable distribution of food and resources were made a priority for those who truly deserve them - those who can afford them and who contribute to society.

We were going to give them a nice fry up and some tea and coffee in the morning, but thought best that we eat all the food ourselves and throw anything we didn't use in the compost for recycling. We've since abandoned the Catholic Faith and are seeking Richard Dawkin's approval in order to join the National Secular Society.

"Frightening": Homeless men wander Brighton's streets at night

With renewed vigour and zeal, the team are drawing up a radical proposal to send to all the Churches of Brighton and Hove currently involved in the night shelter scheme for the "frightening" homeless community.

The population of homeless has "exploded" in the last few years, so we will be making several recommendations to other Churches taking part in the project. We've called it 'Agenda 24(h)'. These recommendations are as follows:

i. Provide round the clock sex education to homeless people.

ii. Coercive artificial contraception measures to be enacted in their regard.

iii. Take steps towards ensuring that despite the fact that there is loads of food in shops, encourage at all nightshelters a progressive policy to keep the homeless community of Brighton in a state of perpetual famine - just as the British Empire did with Africa and other colonies.

iv. Lend a fiver to the homeless men everyday. Set the interest rate at 4059% per day that they have not repaid the debt. If they cannot repay the money then give them another loan at an interest rate of 8098% until they pay back the first loan on the express agreement that each and every man accepts an action plan on reducing their population in Brighton and Hove.

Brighton and Hove City Council have welcomed our environmentally friendly, anti-poverty, population measures and are now considering funding the initiative until 2029. Already the UN has shown an interest in the policy proposal and David Rockefeller has very kindly donated $3 billion to the progressive, environmentally sound, anti-poverty population reduction initiative. Thank you, Mr Rockefeller, you really are a Saint who consistently puts his money where his mouth is.