Home > Tag Archives: The Tablet

Tag Archives: The Tablet

February 14th, 2017

When the Rock Splits the Flock…

In all armies, conscript soldiers approaching demobilisation like to boast  about the length of time they have been in the military. They dismiss more recent recruits (known as red-arses in Britain, and I suspect in Ireland too) with “Get some more service in!”

While I was a 20-year-old national service soldier, the film star Dean Martin made the Top Twenty with That’s Amore. Those like myself who were getting near demobilisation, adapted it as follows:

“Only two  [or three or four, as the case might be] months to do, That’s a lot less  than you, Get some more in!”

Now the song has been cleverly updated to That’s Amoris. I got it from the Brighton-based blog “That the Bones You have Crushed May Thrill”.

Austen Ivereigh is an ultra-progressive Catholic journalist. He is author of The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, and a former deputy editor of The Tablet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

July 22nd , 2016

From the Big Cheese to the Serfs

A final item on the Vincent Nichols v. Robert Sarah row over versus populum /versus orientem.

With acknowledgements to Eccles and his blog.

From: bigcheese@rcdow.org.uk
To: serfs@rcdow.org.uk

Dear Priests of the Archdiocese of Westminster,

You have probably read in the Tablet about a misguided statement from Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, suggesting that some priests might like to consider the possibility, perhaps, if it’s not too much trouble, and nobody minds, of maybe going so far as celebrating some Masses ad orientem.

For those of you under the age of 60 who won’t have learnt any Latin, this is the Language of Satan’s way of saying “with your back turned rudely towards the congregation, making it hard for them to take selfies with you during Mass”.

Cardinal Sarah ad orientem

I’m so glad to see the back of Cardinal Sarah.

Now I wouldn’t go as far as my mentor, Cardinal Kasper, who said “Blimey! Those fuzzy-wuzzy priests are getting a bit above themselves, aren’t they?” but it is clear to me that my own opinions – those of a cardinal who is, dare I say it, papabile – must outweigh any ideas put forward by some jumped-up chap from the Congregation for Divine Worship who has clearly never thought about the issue.

May I remind you all that the General Instruction of the Roman Missal – which has come down to us unchanged from the days of Moses – explicitly says that the altar should be pulled back from the wall so that the cleaners can easily dust it, and this means NO FACING EAST OR YOU WILL GO TO HELL.

May I also emphasise that the celebration of the Church’s Liturgy is not a place in which priests are to exercise personal preference or taste – it is MY personal preference and taste that should be your guide in all things, even when people from the CDW say otherwise. I’ve even got the Pope on my side – well, I’ve got Lombardi and Rosica, and the Holy Father always backs up what they say, if he doesn’t want to find caterpillars in his bed.

So I’m sure you’ll all agree that, as your ordinary – and I have always tried to be as ordinary as possible – all matters of liturgy, doctrine, morals, and choice of football team to support are my decision and mine only. So belt up, the lot of you.

It seems that in Newchurch, now, (at least in the Westminster archdiocese) there’s no way of avoiding the celebrant’s grinning countenance.  I’m just glad that we Traddies don’t have to worry about all this nonsense—yet. Maybe that’s going to be the next nasty surprise our beloved Holy Father is preparing for us.

July 15th, 2016

Fathers, Don’t Let Cardinal Sarah Down

You have probably heard about  the row involving Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, and Cardinal Nichols of Westminster about the priest’s orientation during Mass. (Re-reading that sentence, as the word “orientation” has too often come to mean, in our smutty and prurient age,  sexual preference,  maybe I should explain that I’m referring to whether the celebrant faces versus populum—towards the people—or versus  Orientem—towards the East. The latter is often  described by those who should know better as “with his back to the people”.)  I had always rather naively thought that Monsignor Klaus Gamber, the greatest liturgist of his age, had settled the matter beyond argument in his masterly work The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background: that, contrary to what the modernists argue, the primitive practice was to face East—towards the Lord.

Anyway, I think the best comment  has come from Fr John Hunwicke:

Versus Orientem or Versus Populum? An important point which I don’t think anyone has emphasised, in all the wordage concerning the attack of Vincent Cardinal Nichols upon the Address of Cardinal Sarah, is this:

Both of these Eminent gentlemen are totally agreed that this is a subject that really matters.

Cardinal Sarah makes this abundantly clear in his text. And he must have thought carefully before speaking in a way which he must have known would create a violent reaction. His act was not legislative. But it was a considered action on the part of the official appointed by the Roman Pontiff himself to have charge of the Roman Rite. It was an act of some considerable personal bravery. (For that reason, it seems to me that clergy should themselves have the courage not to let Robert Sarah down.) And the fact that he mentioned the First Sunday in Advent means that this is not some flaccid and timorous vague aspiration to which we might one day get round in the decade after next. He has called on us to do something concrete on a specific day quite soon.

And Cardinal Nichols is equally convinced that this really matters. He instantly emailed all his clergy. Cardinals do not go on to the public record as rubbishing what a brother cardinal has just said, unless they are feeling quite … er … excited. And the facts in the public domain strongly suggest that Nichols instantly got in touch with Papa Bergoglio, who in turn summoned Cardinal Sarah. And the usual machinery started to work in the Vatican Press Office in order … as we say in Anglo-English … to hang Sarah out to dry. Fr Lombardi and … more especially … the sinister Fr Rosica manifestly warmed to their unwholesome task. Nichols would not have set all that in motion over some little detail which no sensible person could possibly consider to matter. 
Sarah and Nichols are both 100% right: this does matter. It goes to the heart of the question of what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really is. It touches upon that whole raft of practical changes (“reordering”) which were not in any way whatsoever mandated by the Council but which were put into effect by those who subsequently got their hands on to the levers of power. It bears powerfully upon the crucial question of whether the mighty task of the redintegratio of Catholic worship, set in motion by Papa Ratzinger, will continue under Papa Bergoglio’s successor.

Even further than that, it encapsulates the fundamental question raised by Benedict XVI, of whether we should see Vatican II in terms of reform within a hermeneutic of continuity, or whether the structural ruptures inflicted on the Church in the 1970s, with such catastrophic effects within the Church over the following four decades, are now to be set in dry, cold, inflexible stone.

We have reached a turning point at which every priest knows that if he heeds Cardinal Sarah’s exhortation, he makes it easier for his brother priests also to do the same; and that that if he opts for a quiet life, it will be that bit easier for The Tablet and ACTA  [A Call To Action] to pick off his bolder brother clergy by demanding their episcopal persecution. There is no reason why a start cannot be made, after catechesis, by introducing versus Orientem on alternate Sundays, or even just on the first Sunday of each month. Advent, when priest and people go forward together to meet the Lord who Comes to us, is indeed a highly suitable occasion.

In the Veni Sancte Spiritus we ask God the Holy Spirit to water what is parched, to heal what is wounded, to bend what is rigid, to warm what is cold, to govern that which strays from the way.

But to do these things, the Holy Spirit needs willing human cooperators. The Body of Christ operates on Grace, not on Magic.

December 24, 2015

Another Caning for BBC’s ‘Ed’

Fr John Hunwicke has  had another ago at BBC radio’s tiresome  programme ‘Sunday’ and its presenter Edward Stourton, scion  of an old recusant family and still alleged to be a Catholic:  

In the December 20 ‘Sunday’ programme, the presenter, ‘Ed’ Stourton, a Catholic who ‘remarried’ after divorce, invited ‘Michael Walsh, a papal historian’, to explain Indulgences.

He did not mention that Walsh is an ex-Jesuit with a history of attacking the Vatican and the previous pontificate; a Tablet contributor. ‘A papal historian’ sounds so much grander than ‘a failed Jesuit who has attacked the Vatican in the Tablet’.

By the way … I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you this … Stourton, inevitably, is a Trustee of the Tablet.

The first conspicuous feature of the episode was the laughter. The pair kept giggling together: I counted six pieces of mirth.

I wonder if either of this spiteful and malevolent pair would ever dare to deal with any other religion … Islam, say … by continually laughing as they talked about it. Or, if they did, how fast the Beeb would sack them.

And there were two major pieces of misrepresentation. (1) The ‘papal historian’ appeared unaware that, as long ago as 1967, the practice of attaching periods of time to partial indulgences was abolished. He described this practice using the present tense.

And, (2), either out of ignorance or mendacity, ‘papal historian’ Walsh went on to claim that Pope Francis ‘has never mentioned [indulgences]’; and ‘that’s not where we are at the moment’. The implication of the interview appeared to be that Indulgences are a load of old rubbish which Sensible Pope Francis is burying by very studiously not mentioning. So what is the truth of the matter?

‘This practice [gaining indulgences] will acquire an even more important meaning [magnum pondus] in the Holy Year of Mercy.’ This is from a paragraph in the Bull of Indiction, in which the Roman Pontiff goes on to commend the practice. Furthermore, in a Letter dated 1 September 2015, our Holy Father set out at length the methods of securing Indulgences during the Jubilee Year of Mercy. And, in his Bull, he carefully explained their purpose: that Absolution remits sin, but ‘the sin leaves a negative effect [contradictionem]’. An indulgence ‘frees us from even the residue [vestigia] left by the consequences of sin’.

I fail to see why this weekly BBC programme, its ‘flagship’ religious slot, should be left in the hands of Stourton, a lapsed Catholic who, like so many of his type, seems to me to be very far from being neutral with regard to the religion which he once professed. And why, if it must give space to someone like Walsh, the Beeb doesn’t balance him with somebody who will defend the Church, even if only by giving accurate information about her.

I thought ‘balance’ was supposed to be one of the BBC rules.

Some years ago Mr Stourton  belittled  the Ordinariate established by Pope Benedict, enabling disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while keeping some aspects of their patrimony. It was a generous  and wise gesture, an example of true ecumenism in action, but Stourton  brought on two people, one Catholic and one Anglican, to scoff at it. Said Fr H.:

He should have been caned more often at Ampleforth: this morning he used a word ‘cacaphony’, which I can only imagine is a combination of the Latin cacare and the Greek phone and presumably means ‘the sound one makes while defecating’. His programme exemplified his own neologism to perfection.

August 31, 2015

A Suppositious Suppositorial

Every few months I feel it my painful duty to buy a copy of The Tablet, alias The Pill, alias The Suppository, to find out exactly what the Mods are saying about current events and trends. I am hoping this penance may  qualify me for  some remission of  Purgatory.

Most of the issue for August 22 was characteristically stodgy,  but there was one editorial (or Suppositorial as my  elder brother would put it) which illustrated just how far this “international Catholic weekly” has accommodated itself to the standards of this world.  I presume it was written by editor Ma Pepinster, or possibly her gopher Elena Curti.

After noting that “much of the discussion preliminary to this autumn’s international synod of bishops on the subject of the family gives the impression that not much has changed since the days when women’s role was defined as Kinder, Küche , Kirche   (children, kitchen, church)”, the editorial points out that “the modern female lifestyle… would be impossible without the separation of sex from reproduction that contraception allows, so that childbearing can be reliably postponed while women begin their careers”.  It continues:

It is not surprising, therefore, that many young women raised as Catholics see the contemporary Church as an irrelevance or an impediment.  The suggestion that they remain celibate until they marry, and then immediately have children,  is not one they are going to take seriously.

And that’s it. One might have expected an “international Catholic weekly” to have drawn the conclusion that the Church has failed miserably over the past half century to get its message across  on  marriage and reproduction, and perhaps to have made some tentative suggestions as to  how the synod might begin an attempt to rectify this failure—but no, there’s nothing more. So the only possible conclusion is that The Tablet believes the synod should consider running up the white flag  and giving the green light to what Robbie Burns calls “houghmagandy”, the British tabloids,  “Nookie”, and my East Surrey comrades in the mid-1950s, “a Bit of the Other”.  Why not just say so? There’s more I want  to say about that issue of The Tablet, but it will keep for a later post.

*************************

STOP PRESS!

I’ve just received the following from my brother-in-law in leafy suburban Surrey:

Tremendous news from here ! With grandchildren staying we had our TV on one of the BBC Children’s channels. They have been running a series where young (pre-teen children) help to plan their parents’ wedding. And what should we see on Saturday—one titled not “Mum and Dad get married” but (wait for it) “MUM AND MUM GET MARRIED”  . So the spirit of Sappho rises to new heights and sings more loudly that ever over our beloved land. I’m sure that dear Erin will soon follow suit, if indeed it hasn’t done so already. Do spread the word to all liberated friends to show that the BBC is really “on the ball” at last.

  

 

November 2, 2014

The Tablet Stuck in a Time-Warp

For a penance, once or twice a year I buy a copy of the Tablet in one of our local churches, just to see what the British mods are thinking . The most revealing section is probably the Letters column. You get an eerie feeling that we are still in the 1960s or early 70s.

The first letter is from France, by a doctor with an Irish name, regurgitating the same ideas about “conscience” as we used to hear just after the Second Vatican Council. He quotes with approval the suggestion by the confessor of one divorced and “remarried” woman that it was up to her own conscience whether she should “take” Communion. ( With Catholic mods, as with Protestants, it’s always “take”, never “receive”.)  This doctor scorns the idea that the Church is “some kind of overarching monarchy from which one has to request permission for one’s actions”. Monarchies, he says, were discredited in the French Revolution over 200 years ago. (“Discrediting” is surely rather an odd way to describe slicing your monarch’s head off.) The doctor concludes by asserting that most of us are quite capable of thinking things through for ourselves “without the need for clergy to tell us what to think, what to do and how to do it”. I am quite unable to understand why people who no longer believe in the magisterium still want to remain part of the Church. Can anyone explain it to me?

Another writer, from Co. Donegal, wishes piotiously : “Perhaps the Holy Spirit will inspire the Synod  Fathers to find a way of not denying the Lord to those who have trouble with their marriages”.  Well, if the synod had come up with such a formula, it would not have been  the Holy Spirit who put them up to it. Anyway, Holy Communion is not denied to “those who have trouble with their marriages”, but to people who refuse to repent of ongoing adultery. It’s not the same thing.

Then we have the “Movement for Married Clergy UK”, suggesting that the fulfilment of their goal might render multiple funerals unnecessary.  Another letter likens the situation of women who have affairs with Catholic priests, to that of the wives of Anglican clerical converts–as though the two were in any way comparable. Yet another, from a woman in Cambridge,  suggests that acceptance of “the teachings of Vatican II” should be a “2014 test of orthodoxy”. She hopes the Synod Fathers “can put collegiality really into practice”.

Next comes  a letter from a woman in Coventry likening the agnostic writer  George Eliot with St Teresa of Avila, “the unconventional and rebellious saint  who struggled with her male  `superiors`”. (The single quotes are not mine, and not St Teresa’s–they are the letter writer’s.)  Finally, the letters column carries a brief item, also from Coventry, this time from a man. He quotes from the Deist encyclopaedist  and anti-religious propagandist Denis Diderot, of all people,  in support of the contention that the synod bishops have no business discussing marriage, because they not married themselves.

 

 

 

 

Issue 1: May 22, 2014

Blubbie Mickens and ‘The Rat’

 

How careless of the Tablet’s Rome correspondent Robert Mickens to have so clearly demonstrated his hatred and contempt for Pope Benedict XVI! But how gratifying—and surprising when you come to think of it—that the top brass at Britain’s flagship modernist Catholic magazine decided Mickens’ offence was damaging enough to merit his suspension..

Many Brandsma readers may be unaware of this episode, so here is a brief resumé:

At the beginning of March, Pope Francis made the 98­ year ­old former secretary to Blessed John Paul II, Loris Francisco Capovilla, a cardinal. A thoughtful and appropriate gesture.

Then in a Facebook exchange, Mickens asked : “Do you think he’ll make it to the Rat’s funeral?”

To which one Chris Grady replied that he hoped the aged cardinal would be well enough to celebrate Pope John’s canonisation—“plus one other”. (The “one other” is Blessed Pope John Paul II.) “The Rat’s funeral the next day would be a bonus,” added Mr Grady..

As it happens, I know a certain Chris Grady, but of course it can’t be the same one. This acquaintance, based in England, has several times ordered books from Francis Book Sales— including missals, etc—and once called to our house. We have been in e­mail correspondence several times, and he seems a reasonable fellow. Religiously, he seems modernistically inclined but not viciously so.

The Chris Grady involved in the Facebook exchange with Mickens and others is very different.  Gratuitous abuse of Benedict XVI and what one can only describe as a pathological detestation of traditional and conservative Catholics.  And evidence of a grotesquely dirty mind. God knows, my own imagination is hardly as pure as the West Virginia snow. But it took me some time to work out what Grady meant when attacking one of the leaders of the Society of St Pius X. He used an expression incorporating this prelate’s name to signify a deviant sexual practice. I will not elucidate.

As for Bobbie Mickens—or Blubbie as he was dubbed after weeping in public after the election of Pope Benedict—well, don’t expect him to remain suspended for very long. Let’s wait and see. As Fr Ray Blake, a most perceptive blogger, has pointed out, you can tell a lot about a man, (or even a magazine) by the friends he (or it) keeps.

Mr Mickens’s supporters have denied—quite absurdly—that there was anything hateful in his use of the term “the Rat”. Of course it was full of bile; both Mickens and Grady would apparently like to see Benedict dead, or why refer to the Pope Emeritus’ funeral in such a way?

In another context, of course, the nickname might be used with affection, and even admiration.

When Pope Benedict freed up the old Latin Mass, many of us cheered “Good old Ratty!”

 

*************************

 

How’s This for ‘Compassion’?

 

Yes, the internet can perform a very useful service by revealing the true state of mind of cynical anti-­life journalists .

Here in Ireland Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who “broke ” the story of Savita Halappanavar with a pro­abortion slant has revealed what a truly nasty piece of goods she really is.

It happened like this: Someone calling him or herself “@prolifestuff” tweeted a link to a very moving story of a father dying of pancreatic cancer. As he obviously wouldn’t be able to attend his little daughter’s wedding when she eventually gets married, her father surprised her on her birthday by walking down the aisle in a mock wedding to give her a nice memory to look back on when she is older. (It’s not the kind of thing I would do myself in similar circumstances, but that’s not the point.)

The repellent Ms Holland replied to this tweet as follows:

“@prolifestuff walks 11­year­old daughter down the aisle!! The anti­choice crowd into child brides now! !??”

Keep this in mind the next time Kitty Holland or the Irish Times lectures pro­lifers for a lack of compassion.

My acknowledgments to Hibernicus for drawing my attention to this revealing episode.

 

*************************

 

No Royal Male Queens

 

It has been drawn to my attention that the introduction of homosexual pseudogamy in Britain is having unforeseen and rather hilarious consequences. If a future king “marries” another man, the new law solemnly states that such a partner will not be entitled to call himself “Queen”. And if the monarch’s heir marries a man, that man will not become Princess of Wales. Similarly, to ensure that these exciting legal changes are smoothly integrated into British society, if a Duke or an Earl “marries” a male, that male will not get the title Duchess, Countess or Lady.

Rather more ominously, the terms Husband and Wife are to be removed from all legislation and replaced by “male spouse” and “female spouse”. The word “widow” will no longer be recognised, being replaced by “female spouse of a deceased partner”. Can you imagine anything like this happening, say, 20 years ago?

Apparently, in his rush to placate the militant homosexual lobby, David Cameron did not realise that over two thousand legislative changes would be needed. Hundreds of Civil Servants were diverted from projects such as flood relief to take care of this huge and worthy task.

Acts of Parliament dating back over 700 years have had to be amended. These include even the Treason Act of 1351, which makes it high treason to “violate the King’s companion” or that of the heir. A government spokeswoman explained that it would still be high treason to have intercourse with a king’s wife—but not his husband. Other changes will affect long­standing legislation covering inheritance, taxation, social security and children.

The British Conservatives are so anxious to be considered nice, compassionate, and politically correct, so keen finally to slough off the “Nasty Party” label, that Tory media spokespersons frequently raise this subject of “gay marriage” as evidence of how truly progressive they have become. Whether this will improve their electoral prospects is most doubtful. I suspect that if the United Kingdom Independence Party were to proclaim that they would repeal this ridiculous Act in the unlikely event of their achieving power at Westminster, they would gain considerable support. (I don’t know if the UKIP leader Nigel Farage is a very estimable individual, but I always enjoy his knockabout media appearances. His crushing defeat of the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in their EU debates on BBC television was a real tour de force.)

 

*************************

 

Friggin’ Eunuchs and Man­Grabbers

 

Having cast off the shackles of royalty and aristocracy, we in Ireland will avoid some of these problems when we too introduce marriage rights for “gay” citizens. But never fear: there will still be plenty of extra work for Gaeilgeori civil servants when it comes to drafting legislation in the First Official Language. In previous legal reforms, Irish language experts sometimes had to invent new words from scratch—or so I was informed by former colleagues in the RTÉ Newsroom.

I know only a few phrases of Irish, but I recall that during the push for “family planning” in the 1970s, the late John Healy of the Irish Times pointed out that the Irish for “contraceptive” sounds like “friggin’ eunuch”. Seems appropriate. A learned Irish scholar informs me that the word referred to by Healy is frithghiniúnach, based on the verbal noun frithghiniúint. It’s a twentieth-century neologism.

The Welsh have had some problems finding a politically­correct expression for “homosexual”. There have been complaints from the expected quarters that the commonly­used Welsh dictionary entry for homosexual translates literally as “man­grabber”.

 

********************

 

Thirsty Majesty

 

While we still more or less are on the subject of Queens, the late Queen Elizabeth the British Queen Mother, who died some years ago aged over 100, was a lady of fixed habits. In common with Michael Collins, she always smoked Three Castles, but she also liked to be served with a gin and tonic at a fixed time before dinner. In one of the royal palaces, there was a preponderance of homosexuals among the staff. After waiting over half an hour, Her Majesty is reported to have picked up the telephone and announced: “I don’t know what you old queens are up to down there, but there’s an Old Queen up here who’s dying of thirst.”

 

*************************

 

Homofascism on the March

 

No movement, except communism and fascism, has practised censorship more rigidly than those who bellow for the abolition of all controls.

—Mary Whitehouse

 

It is already socially infra dig. to refer to active homosexuality in tones other than those of total acceptance and respect, or to point out that sodomy is not only dangerous and insanitary but also, objectively, a deadly sin. I’d like to make a prediction. In the not too distant future, probably within 10 years, it will be a punishable offence at law (probably a “hate crime”) to state the perennial Catholic and biblical teaching on the subject.

This will be the case in most of the Americas, in the whole of Western Europe including Ireland, and in many other countries. The Moslem world and much of Africa will be exceptions. But most proper Catholics and genuine evangelicals will fall victim to what churchmilitant.tv has described as “homofascism”. Here’s how that term is defined:

…a way of organising a society in which homosexualists impose their agenda with which no one is to disagree or to have any appeal to the contrary without being subjected to severe consequences of ridicule, slander, libel, fines, public demonstrations, distortions, denial of free speech rights, loss of employment, and of having he word “hate” attached to you in some form.

Let’s take a look at how we have already come down this road. In Ireland, we have had the dreadful and well­documented hounding of the exceptional journalist John Waters who expressed some moderate and well­argued opinions on the undesirability of homosexual practices.

Elsewhere, the following episodes were reported in the space of just over seven days:

A Church of Scotland minister lost his job as a chaplain because he criticised, on Facebook, the legalisation of same­sex “marriage” in Scotland; a Catholic school in Massachusetts is undergoing a state investigation for withdrawing a job offer to a man when it discovered he was “married” to another man; the municipal authorities in Rome are proposing a ban on Father’s Day activities in schools where children might come from lesbian “same­sex parent” homes; a Canadian man has filed a human rights complaint against his former Catholic schoolfor “a pattern of homophobia”; also in Canada, homosexual activists are threatening demonstrations and gathering petition signatures to prevent a pro­family American from speaking to a pro­life conference.; homosexualists are boycotting an Oregon natural foods store before it even opens its doors because the owner supports traditional marriage. They are also lining up boycotts of store suppliers; homosexualists have successfully organised an annual “Day of Silence” in public schools across the United States to “eradicate conservative moral beliefs”; Disney is threatening to withdraw funding to the Boy Scouts unless they allow homosexual scoutmasters; an American Catholic teacher is suing his former Catholic school employer after being fired for “marrying” his homosexual partner; a New Mexico husband and wife wedding photography team lost their bid in the US Supreme Court challenging a state “sexual orientation” law for refusing to photograph a lesbian same­sex union. They had to pay $6,000.

And perhaps scariest of all: qualified theologian Sister Jane Dominic of Aquinas College has been forced to take leave of absence and cancel her speaking engagements after her reiteration of Catholic teaching on homosexuality gave offence to some parents and pupils at a Catholic school in North Carolina.

One week’s work by the homofascist lobby.

 

************************

 

OK, I’m Homophobic

 

It is customary for anyone putting his or her head over the parapet by criticising homofascism to preface their remarks by insisting that of course they are in no way homophobic. Well, as “homophobia”, if it has any real meaning at all, must mean fear of aggressive homosexualism, I have to put my hands up. You bet I’m scared of the “gay lobby”! I’m scared of any group that is campaigning, with ever-­increasing success, to suppress my right to disagree with it.

Having said which, I have the greatest sympathy for those struggling, with more or less success, to resist temptation to serious sin in this area, or indeed any other. (As someone important said: “Who am I to judge?”)

But that will make the homofascists even crosser…

 

*************************

 

Robbo the Warmo­Fascist

 

It’s not only the militant homos who are guilty of neo­fascism, but I was a bit surprised to hear the establishment arch­liberal Mary Robinson (remember her as “the President with a Purpose”? being so dictatorial on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland about climate change.

Because it is now official group­think that man­made global warning is an established fact, Mrs Robinson says the media should stop giving the anti­warmists equal air time and column inches. (I hadn’t noticed that they ever did so.)

 

*************************

 

Greenpeace Rules in Schools

 

And in Britain, I see that one youngster, who got straight A-­levels in all his science papers, and had acquired extensive knowledge of climate science, failed an exam in general studies when he pointed out that “source materials” on climate change.were riddled with basic errors. When his mother paid to have his paper independently assessed, the new examiner conceded that the boy’s answer was well informed and well structured. But he was still failed: he hadn’t parrotted the warmist party line.

As Christopher Booker pointed out in the Sunday Telegraph, generations of schoolchildren have been taught to accept as gospel nothing but a propagandist, Greenpeace-­type view of the global warming scare. Yet the British Education Act of 1996 requires that pupils should be taught in a balanced way and allowed to form their own view of the evidence.

And the lefty neo­fascists accuse the Catholic Church of brainwashing…

 

**************************

 

Passion Play Banned

 

I can hardly believe this, but Oxford city council banned a public Passion Play scheduled for Good Friday because, they said, officials “thought it was a sex show” Either they are telling the truth, in which case public ignorance of Christian tradition has plumbed new depths; or else they are not— which would indicate a remarkable degree of anti-­religious malice. In previous years the play has been performed in the streets of Cowley without incident.

Have these people really never heard of Mel Gibson’s film?

 

*************************

 

Now That’s a Relief

 

Proof that Pope Francis is not about to concede one of the top items on the liberal wish­list by getting a new, “liturgically ­correct” Master of Ceremonies: L’Osservatore Romano reported in mid ­March that the Holy Father has confirmed Don Guido Marini in the post for a further five years. That should mean that papal liturgical ceremonies will be reverent and orthodox, as they were under Benedict XVI.