Ooops, is my privilege showing?...

I read this piece the other day, arguing that Cambridge University turned me [that is the author, one Joe Goodman] into an arrogant, entitled brat and my thoughts turned to Helen Hanff.

Joe's problem with Cambridge is summed up in this paragraph:

It's true that not all of Cambridge's excesses are compulsory. Most of the time no one's making you eat in formal hall or buy a ticket to your college May Ball, but there's no denying the resounding expectation. You'd have to be fairly strong-headed to not even attend your own college's May Ball, while "I can't afford it" is the sort of comment that causes uncomfortable looks rather than being the expected response to, "Why aren't you going to an event that costs over £100?"

I have to admit, I did not go to Cambridge, but to the Other Place. However, Goodman is clearly including Oxford in his criticism:

By putting the most promising and ambitious students who haven't grown up with a silver spoon firmly attached to their face through three years in Oxbridge's gold-plated mangle, what are we doing for the future of our country?

All I can say is that my experience of Oxford was very different from this. I rarely ate in formal hall, nor was I expected to. I did go to one Ball, but as a musician*, playing in a band. I never paid for a Ball ticket and neither did most of my friends. There simply wasn't the ubiquitous culture of expectation and entitlement that he describes. And I went to one of the posher colleges, as it happens. 

I am sure that the culture he describes exists; but I am equally sure it was not ubiquitous. Indeed, many of us mildly disliked those who subscribed to it; but we didn't spend much time worrying about them, as we were (as most undergraduates are) rather too concerned with our own interests and affairs.

Which brings me back to Helene Hanff. In one of her books (either 84 Charing Cross Road, or The Duchess of Bloomsbury Street - I forget which and someone has 'borrowed' my copy...)  she recounts how she was looking forward to her trip to London, and talking with a Londoner about it. He assured her that people find the London they are looking for: if she wanted the England of English Literature, then she would surely find it.

I wonder if the same applies to Cambridge and Oxford: that undergraduates find the University (or Varsity) they are looking for. And I bless my late Father, also a Magdalen man, who told me, before I went up, that one of the best reasons to go to Oxford was that it meant for the rest of my life, I would be immunised from any false respect for an Oxford degree.

He was right. I made many friends, and I observed many fools. I watched, from varying degrees of distance, the undergraduate lives of people who went on to become MPs in the three main parties; and made friends with people who made a career in anything from the Health Service to (hiss) Consultancy to (hiss hiss) Banking.

The only extravagance I acquired at Oxford (and the one I maintain to this day) is a liking for the excellent shoes hand-made by Ducker and Son. Other than that, I remain a tightwad. As for a sense of entitlement, perhaps that's not for me to judge; but if I acquired one, I seem to have mislaid it some time ago.

--

* On reflection, I think I overstate this: I was a drummer. As in the well-known joke: what do you call a chap who hangs around with musicians? A drummer.

What is a University for?

I was irritated by this article on students and their various campaigns for trigger warnings and the denial of a 'platform' for people whose views they don't like.  The writer, an academic from Oxford, I am sorry to say, writes stuff like this:

As unions are in the factory, so social media can be on the campus: an organising tool against authority, linking together voices that are otherwise marginalised and disconnected. 

Such tools would be useless, however, if students didn’t know what to do with them. Critics assert that modern students are losing their powers of critical thinking, but what we are actually seeing is that power in action: students are using their critical faculties to uncover structures of power in their own academic and social environments. 

I mean, really... 'Structures of power,' like lecturing on the canon of English Literature, or the law surrounding rape, or inviting distinguished and controversial academics to speak. What excellent powers of 'critical thinking' are on display here.

Later he writes:

When these people and their allies fight back and assert their own rights over the spaces they live in, that’s not “vindictive protectiveness” – it’s politics. 

It is indeed. And he approves whole-heartedly. All of which might make you wonder what he thinks a University is, and what he thinks it is for.  But he does give us some clues:

It could be, in fact, that the traditional model of the university just isn’t compatible with this newly empowered, student-led politics of social justice. 

Now, I have nothing against justice, social or otherwise, but this political philosophy begs so many questions.

I am reminded of Maslow's lament, as he observed the unintended results of his and Carl Rogers' work, that learners were losing all respect for their teachers. He saw this as entirely antithetical to his Jewish heritage, and more broadly to the heritage of civilisation, which assumes that the young, ignorant and inexperienced may benefit from exposure to the wisdom, learning and experience of the wise.

And surely that is the premise of a University; along with the notion that by associating with others, also seeking learning, we may be educated.

But the vision of a University we are offered here raises a question: what is a University for? Is it for learning, or is it for social activism? The two are not necessarily opposed, but they certainly may be. 

For the approach of this type of activism seems predicated on the assumption that they know all the answers, whereas I think one of the most profound things one should learn at University is that we don't.

All of which made me reflect on my University days. I remember the self-righteous zeal of youth that made me and a friend go on an expedition with the Hunt Saboteurs, whom we had met at the Freshers' Fair. One of the huntsmen took the time to stop and talk to us, which was both coolheaded and brave given the upset and abuse we were determined to mete out. He asked why we were there, and what we thought were better solutions to the problems of foxes tearing chickens and lambs apart. He explained the difficulties of any solutions we proposed. 

I also reflect on the other Saboteurs. They were not the kinds of undergraduate I often met. They were very posh, living in a very nice house in Boar's Hill. It struck me, as I reflected on the day, that their protest was really adolescent counter-dependency: a way of hitting back at their own upbringing. They were not interested, for example, in the conversation with the huntsman that my friend and I had. They just wanted to shout and spray their Anti Mate (the Sabs weapon of choice, back in the day...).

I do not know if the huntsman was right in his arguments or not; but he did make me realise that I knew next to nothing about what I was so self-righteously agitating about. It was one of the more important, and most memorable, lessons of my university career. 

Our Lord as Yokel

I have been re-reading Sheed's superb To Know Christ Jesus,  and have just been struck afresh by his point about Our Lord having been raised in Galilee, and therefore (doubtless) having a local accent.

Sheed writes: Provincial accents vary; some we admire, some we smile at. The Galilean was of this latter sort. The men of Juda mocked it, very much as St Augustine's African accent caused his Italian friends to mock his speaking of the Latin which he wrote so superbly. In synagogue services, it was customary for a member of the congregation to give an explanation of one of the Scripture passages just read: in Judea, Galileans were discouraged from giving it: to have the congregation giggling would not have been seemly.

In other words, Our Lord is likely to have spoken with the kind of provincial accent which we tend to laugh at. 

At first, that seems almost an irreverent thought, Our Lord talking Mummerset... But on further reflection, it is perhaps typical. Not only did he descend from the Heavenly Heights to become Man, but he became Man in poverty, in a stable; and not only that, but chose to be male, rather than female ( Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both saw the female as God's masterpiece). And not only that, but he chose to present as a rustic...

All of which led me to reflect on how quick I am to judge people by how they talk rather than by what they say.  And who does that remind me of: 'Can anything good come out of Galilee?...'

Call this justice?...

Some years ago, when I was a teenager, I was jumped by some youths, pushed to the ground and kicked in the face and body. Luckily a police car was passing by, and the police intervened before I was very badly hurt.

Nonetheless I was hurt, and also distressed.  The lad they caught (the other got away) was let off with a caution, and I was awarded £5 damages in respect of my watch glass which had been broken.  I was told there is no compensation for the physical and emotional hurt that such an attack causes.

Today I read that a gay couple who were not allowed a room at a Christian-run B&B were awarded £1800 each for 'hurt feelings.'

I am sure there are many other people who have suffered physical assault far worse than mine who will be surprised at this: but clearly having your sexual orientation hurt is far worse than being physically beaten up.

That is not the only aspect of this case which prompts my headline.

Some years ago, when a similar case was prosecuted, I raised the question of equality, in light of the fact that gay hotels operate with no problems.

It is (or was - see update) apparently perfectly ok to advertise:

Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years,and is one of the most popular and longest established gay hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and groups who want a gay environment with quality accommodation.Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!

Just in case that is not clear, this is indeed a hotel that excludes anyone except homosexuals:

Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people, but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money, and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have STAG & HEN parties staying.!!! If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.

As I said back then: it seems clear to me that the legal, political and social developments in this country are nothing to do with equality, but rather pro-homosexual and anti-Christian.

UPDATE

I have just had a look at Guyz current www site (the quotations above were lifted from it some time ago) and I notice it has changed - so perhaps the equality legislation is catching up with them after all.  Certainly at the time the fuss was made about the Cornish Hotel, this text was proudly on their site).

UPDATE 2

Another Blackpool hotel (The Wilcot) advertises:

This Gay Blackpool Hotel has been established since 2004 and in that time has built up and excellent reputation for high Standards and friendliness, Welcoming Gay Men, Lesbians and their friends.

Is there not some discrimination there against people who don't have a gay-friendly attitude?...


UPDATE 3

Someone has just pointed out Chaps Hotel:

Welcome to Chaps Hotel Blackpool. Exclusively gay men only!

Chaps hotel is the largest and one of the best hotels for men only and perfect for Gay holidays and Gay weekends. Chaps Hotel, Blackpool's Premier Gay Hotel is truly one of the most popular hotels in Blackpool and has been 'the place to stay for gay holidays' for many years.

Offensive and Homophobic?

The Cranmer blog ran this advertisement and is now receiving threatening emails from the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) as it is believed by some complainants to be offensive and homophobic.

I am running it because I simply can;t see how anyone could reach that conclusion.

If you can see that, could you please enlighten me in the comms box.

I note that many people who disagree with Cranmer (and me) on Same-Sex Marriage are as mystified, and outraged, at this as I am, according to the many messages Cranmer has received on his blog and Twitter.

Hate crime or thought crime

I was listening to a piece on the Sunday programme this morning about hate crime.  There were some horrendous stories about the kinds of vicious things people say and do to others.

Nonetheless, I am profoundly uneasy at the notion of hate crime.  Why would it have been worse of John Terry to have called another footballer a black buffoon (or whatever he is alleged to have said) than, say, a ginger buffoon or a bald buffoon?

Why is racially aggravated assault worse than assault for other reasons?

It seems to me that we have entered dangerous territory here.  The State has a reasonable and legitimate interest in circumscribing my behaviour when it infringes the liberties of others.  It has no reasonable or legitimate interest in dictating how I am to think: for that is the path to totalitarianism.

A friend of mine is a police officer.  Apparently all around the back offices of the Police Station are posters proclaiming that if a person claims an offence to have been racially motivated, then it was racially motivated and must be recorded as such.

So once again, an extraordinary degree of subjectivity is introduced into our legal and criminal processes. I could claim, for example, that when Mrs T. beaned me with a frying pan for forgetting Valentine's day once again (a purely fictitious example, you understand) that it was because in her heart of hearts she'd always wanted to marry an Asian, and it was because I'm white (as she is) that she hit me.  The police would be obliged to record that as an allegation of racially aggravated assault, and treat it accordingly.

Let me be quite clear: I am not saying it is ok for footballers, or anyone else, to abuse people because of their race, skin colour etc.  But then I don't think it is any better for them to abuse people for any other reason.  I believe the law should stick to what actually happened, not to what attitudes others believe may sit behind it - which are in any case usually the fruit of ignorance.

That Bideford Case

An extraordinary judgement today in the case of Bideford Council and its time-honoured practice of praying before a council meeting. This was the case that even Trevor Phillips thought was 'nonsense on stilts' and about which I originally blogged here.

On a small technical point, rather than the main points of principle placed before the court, the High Court has held that it is illegal for the Council to continue the practice.  It has also given the Council leave to appeal.

For an informed, if incredulous, view, read Neil Addison's blog.  Actually, you should always read Neil Addison's Religion Law Blog...

Update: I have just seen an interesting take on this at Heresy Corner, suggesting it is a Pyrrhic victory for the NSS.

(H/t Echurch blog)

More on Catholic Voices

I have been musing further on Catholic Voices and the antipathy they have encountered in some quarters of the Catholic blogosphere.

(Blog first, think afterwards, that's my motto!)

As I said previously, the issues are complex, but over the last couple of weeks another dynamic has become clearer to me.

On at least two occasions, and with two different CV speakers, I have found myself explaining some of the history that sits behind some current issues; on each occasion I was greeted with 'Oh, I hadn't known about that.'

That is entirely reasonable; the whole point of CV was to recruit younger and fresher voices.  They certainly wouldn't want old jaded people like me representing the Church in the public forum.  Who knows what I might say!

These younger fresher Voices also tend to start from a positive point of view (that was also a requirement, and an understandable one).  So they see something emanating from the official Catholic Establishment (Bishops' Conference, CES, Ecclestone Sq, CAFOD...) and react to it starting with the assumption that it is likely to conform to, and express, a Catholic worldview.

That should be a safe assumption, of course.  Unfortunately, in my view and based on a few decades of disillusionment (I'll post some more 'why I am so bitter and twisted' posts eventually), that is no longer a safe assumption.

So when I (and others) hear a young fresh Voice extolling the latest pronouncement or nuance which we find problematic, we think 'But don't they realise...!?!'

But of course it is unfair to expect them to know in detail the battles and betrayals of the last 40 years.

Which raises the question: is it fair to dull their enthusiasm by rehearsing all those old disappointments and disillusionments?

But I have never subscribed to 'if ignorance is bliss...'  The task we face is to re-evangelise our world; a necessary pre-cursor in this country is to re-evangelise our Church; and that means really debating and seeking to understand what has gone wrong.

To their credit the Voices with whom I have had these interactions have been open to and interested in the background to my prejudicial views.  I don't expect them to agree with them all (that would be frightening indeed!) but I think a critical engagement with the issues is essential.

I still have reservations about the leadership of CV, but that's another issue...

I'm such an elitest snob...

Fr Ray Blake carries an appreciative note about an event at the Oratory on God and Shakespeare.

I thought it sounded really interesting, but I was clearly wrong...

Rev Alan Griffiths said...

I don't think this would be very relevant or a priority to the lives of most working class urban catholics struggling to get by in difficult times. I feel it also highlights what a fantasy bubble most of you uber-traditionalists live in.

I am sure Fr Griffiths knows more about the lives and priorities of working class urban Catholics than I do, but I can't help wondering: even if he is right, is that a good thing?


Would it not be better if intellectual and cultural  stimulation were more of a priority, and seen as more relevant, in such circles and such times?  Not least given the social support that comes from people meeting to discuss together things pertinent to their Faith (though of course holding hands at the Our Father, and shaking hands at 'the Peace' is so much more effective at building solidarity...)


There is something rather brutal in the implication that in tough times we insult people by talk of culture and ideas. Though I do accept, of course, that only working class urban Catholics are worthy of any support...

And then the well-informed comment about uber-traditionalists...

But hey, I'm white, male, middle class, educated, middle aged, Catholic (probably that means uber-traditionalist) so what would I know? Think I'll go back to my fantasy bubble.

Support Thomas More Legal Centre

I received this letter, via a friend, which I am delighted to publicise. The Thomas More Legal Centre do fantastic work on behalf of us all.

Dear Friends,

Please see the announcement below which will be covered by the Catholic press this week.

In brief, a Catholic mental health nurse has lost her job because, in a professional discussion with a colleague, she made available a booklet providing case histories of the mental health consequences of abortion. The booklet was deemed to be 'religious' and she was dismissed for 'distributing materials which some might find offensive.

The nurse's case is being supported at an Employment Tribunal by the Thomas More Legal Centre, of which I am the Chairman; it will be heard on 15th November. We also intend to bring a case in the County Court arguing a breach of her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is not an isolated problem. An unrelated case reported last week concerned a man demoted for saying on his facebook page that he thought new laws allowing civil partnerships on religious premises were 'an equality too far'. His public sector employer deemed this a breach of their diversity policies and moved him as a disciplinary measure from a £37k post to one earning £21k per annum.

If we do not take action, and establish some legal judgements setting precedents, the ability to express any Catholic moral view will effectively become unlawful.

Please help if you can, either by making a donation, or by offering a pledge against the need to meet any legal costs that might be awarded against us if we fail. Please forward this message to as many people as you think may be interested in helping, and please put it on any blogs you may be running. Please pray for our success.

With many thanks,

Richard Kornicki
Chairman, Thomas More Legal Centre

You can find out more - and donate of course - at their www site Prayers are also essential; perhaps in particular through the intercession of their patron, whom I understand to be the only member of the English Bar ever to have been canonised...

More on non-directional counselling

I ended my last post with three questions about Life's use of non- directional counselling: could they? Should they? And what does it do to them if they do?

Could they?

The idea of non- directive counselling is that the counsellor should use open questions and active listening to help the client to clarify his thinking and understanding and to reach his own conclusions, leading to positive (from the client's point of view) actions and outcomes. When skilfully practiced, with a client who has a well-formed conscience, it can be a beneficial approach.

It is actually extremely hard to do when the counsellor has a strong point of view on the topic under discussion. Even if the counsellor manages to refrain from leading or prejudicial questions, there is a host of ways (from the intake of breath, the raised eyebrow or the smile to the tone of voice, intonation patterns used in questions etc) in which the counsellor may inadvertently confer positive or negative judgements on what the client says.

With good training and regular practice, of course, some people will become skilled in this; but when the stakes are as high, the beliefs as strong, and the passions as involved as they are in discussing the issue of abortion, I suspect that total impartiality at every level is rarely achieved. And if it is, what does that do to the counsellor? (I will come back to that question below.)

Should they?

This strikes me as much more contentious. I imagine that the reasons for Life adopting this approach are several:
If they explicitly offered pro-life counselling, they would not be reaching women who need help and support
Non-directional counselling is respectable in academic, counselling and political circles
It may well be that on occasions a non-directional approach helps women with well-formed consciences to reach the correct decision: that is, not to have an abortion.

However, one is driven to ask, what is their objective in offering counselling?

Is it in the hope of persuading women not to have abortions, albeit through a non-directional approach? And if that is the case, does not that place at least an implicit lie at the heart of their work in this arena? And does that not also make the likelihood of a truly non- directional approach much less?

Or is it for some other reason? In which case, how are they being true to their pro-life mission? And does not that place a lie at the heart of their relationship with those who support them as a pro-life organisation?

So it seems to me that there is here an issue of organisational integrity that cannot easily be resolved.

I should add that if the women with whom they are engaging were likely to have well- formed consciences, then the approach might be defensible, at least on pragmatic grounds. William Coulson was for a long time the right hand man of Carl Rogers, the famed and acclaimed prophet of non- directional counselling. A Catholic, Coulson eventually recanted from his work with Rogers, recognising the enormous damage it had done, not least in Catholic circles. Coulson's point was that if someone lacked a well-formed conscience, then to throw him entirely onto his own resources when addressing serious and difficult issues was inhumane. He will inevitably fall back on the standards of the world (or, I would add, the flesh or the devil...)

In our current culture, the average woman is subjected to so much propaganda normalising abortion, and selfish decision making (autonomy, independence, liberation, self fulfilment etc) that to deny her any other perspective is a likely to lead in a particular direction. So how non- directive is that in fact?

My third question is, what does it do to committed pro- life people to be taught to practice, and then repeatedly to practice, non- directional counselling about this issue?

My concerns are that it attacks their own integrity, and that it will also expose them to great distress as women leave their meetings and go off to abort their children; the counsellor will always be wondering, at some level, could or should I have done more to help that woman and save that baby's life?

I do not wish to denigrate Life, an organisation for which my wife and I have both worked for many years, and which does a huge amount of good work. But I do believe that this is too important an issue to be left unaddressed.

Irrational rationalism

I heard some uppity physicist and an aged philosopher talking on the tail end of the Today programme on Radio 4 yesterday.

I call the physicist uppity as he was claiming that science could answer all the big questions, and declaring non-scientifically that the question 'why are we here' was a non-question as it was simply an accident.

Silly man! He failed on two counts - one making a philosophical declaration (it is simply an accident) when claiming to be basing his thinking on rational and empirical sciences; the second failing to recognise that believing in empirical evidence is also a philosophical stance. For example, i could easily maintain that we are programmed by some malevolent (or benign) programmer to think that we can experience reality, but in fact we don't; that position is simply not able to be addressed empirically: the evidence would look the same either way.

It's the fact that such scientists don't even get how limited their view of reality is that really irritates me - that and the way they are adulated by the media and others with a secularising agenda.

Jews and Christians

On the Today programme this morning, I heard the tail end of a discussion about relationships between Catholics and Jews. I do not know who the Catholic representative was, but he made the point that both Pope John Paul 2nd and our current Holy Father had apologised for Catholic mistreatment of Jews through history, based on a wrong interpretation of the words in St Matthew’s Gospel: ‘His blood be upon us and our children’s children.’

The female rabbi concluded the discussion by saying ‘Every time this is mentioned there should be an apology.’

That struck me a slightly strange.

I make no excuses for the persecution of Jews through the centuries, but it did strike me that what the Rabbi was saying was that present day Catholics are accountable for the sins of their fore fathers. It’s a tenable position. But the context within which she was saying it, that present-day Jews could not be held accountable for the sins of their fore-fathers struck me as slightly self-contradictory.

The (old) New Priests

Laurence 'Bones' has a post featuring an article by a retired priest expressing his distress at the cruel trick played on him by the Vatican Despots.

It is worth reading on many levels, not least because such men are worthy of our pity and needing our prayers.

The saddest line of all, perhaps, is also the most revealing: 'We changed from being priests called and consecrated by God to being presbyters called and ordained by the Church – the People of God. '

In addition to Laurence's observations, a couple of things leapt out at me: the self-contradicitons contained in this sad outpouring.

One was: 'We realised that clericalism was an evil, not a good, and discarded it with its style;' followed by: 'The celebration of the importance of priests in the church is belied by the contempt with which they are treated. ' Is there just a hint of double think here - and of wounded vanity?

And likewise: ' We ran highly successful and active parishes;' and 'Today the ranks of the priesthood are depleted due to low recruitment over the last forty years.' So how successful where these parishes in fact?...

But go and read the whole piece and draw your own conclusions.

Sauce for the goose but not for the gay

A Christian couple who run a hotel in Cornwall have lost a legal case brought by a pair of homosexual men who complained that their policy of only allowing married couples to stay in double rooms was discriminatory.

So no Christian can now run a hotel in accordance with traditional Christian beliefs.

This apparently is all about equality.

Yet strangely, equality is a one-way street. It is apparently perfectly ok to advertise:

Guyz Hotel has been run as a gay hotel for the past 24 years,
and is one of the most popular and longest established gay
hotels in Blackpool, catering for gay couples, singles and
groups who want a gay environment
with quality accommodation.
Previously voted 3rd best gay hotel in UK!!

Just in case that is not clear, this is indeed a hotel that excludes anyone except homosexual men:

Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.
That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people,
but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels
locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money,
and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have
STAG & HEN parties staying.!!!
If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively
gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment.

Clearly, the legal, political and social developments in this country are nothing to do with equality, but rather pro-homosexual and anti-Christian.

Self deluding...

I had a fascinating conversation yesterday with a very intelligent chap, published researcher and all that, who had created a totally closed belief system for himself, and managed to interpret the evidence to make it fit his views.

What he was arguing was that Christ had no intention of founding a Church and did not do so; no more did Sts Peter and Paul see themselves as leading a Church, and so on.

According to his reading of it, Christianity was founded by Constantine, and was simply a way of prolonging Roman values with religious fervour. This, he explained to me, was why the Church was so riven with sex abuse scandals, because the Romans were always sexually licentious; likewise it was the reason for teachers in Catholic schools beating children: that was the way Romans behaved. And so on.

It was so obviously absurd that it took my breath away - but as I say he is an intelligent man. It reminded me of the fact that the human brain is so powerful an instrument that we can construct an understanding of the evidence to fit almost any philosophy to which we choose to sign up. Or as Blessed John Henry Newman put it: We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe.

Fascinating meetings with Hawking

A parallel me was operating as a string in a parallel universe yesterday (except it was't really yesterday as time works rather differently there) and I bumped into a Professor Stephen Hawking.

Fascinatingly, he poured scorn on M-theory and rubbished it for postulating more dimensions and more universes than are necessary to solve the problems it is designed to address.

He was rather dismissive of the Stephen Hawking in this universe, claiming that he didn't exist and it wasn't necessary for him to be invented.

However, in another universe, the Stephen Hawking there (who manifests as a hyper-intelligent shade of the colour blue) told the Ben Trovato there that both were wrong and that M-theory had to be combined with N-theory to to produce Theory-S which was a proper theory of everything.

And so it was as I visited my other selves across many universes: each Stephen Hawking was more sure than the last that the others were wrong. The only thing they all agreed on was that whichever one I was talking to at the time was right and that each could prove the non-existence of God.

Meanwhile the deluded BBC here continues to adulate the Stephen Hawking here as he appears to validate their particular world-view, despite the fact that numerous other Stephen Hawkings in many other unknown universes clearly think he's quite mistaken.

OP - Obfuscating and Pernicious

Fr Timothy Radcliffe, OP, had a letter published in Saturday's (UK) Times purporting to explain "the Vatican's" position on the attempted ordination of women.

He wrote (inter alia): "The sexual abuse of minors is a gravely serious sin. The attempted ordination of a Roman Catholic woman raises different issues.

The priest presides at Holy Communion, the sacrament of our unity in the Church, and so an ordination that is productive of division would be a contradiction in terms. Many Catholics believe that women should not be excluded from ordination, but this will only be possible with the consensus of the communion of the Church."

Firstly, the opposition in the first paragraph (sin v different issues) seems to imply that the attempted ordination of women is not a serious sin.

Secondly, his reason against the ordination of women is a bit of a straw man: it is one of the reasons, but by no means the most telling: he makes it appear to be the only one.

Thirdly, Many Catholics believe that women should not be excluded from ordination,
is not a Catholic way of expressing this point: "many who claim to be Catholic believe" or even "many Catholics mistakenly believe" would be better; likewise the use of 'excluded' is prejudicial and partisan.

Fourthly, he knows full well that the Church teaches definitively that the ordination of women is impossible - it will not be possible by consensus or any other means.

Fifthly, the ecclesiology implied in 'the consensus of the communion of the Church' .is erroneous - and he must know that.

He should be ashamed of himself: pray for him.

Obsessed with Sex

There is a rather boring troll at Laurence England's blog who has raised the age-old question: Why is the Catholic Church obsessed with Sex?

It's a fair question, when you consider the posters of scantily clad women outside every Catholic Church, beckoning you in, the fact that no parish bulletin is complete without a page 3 starlet, the parish youth workers in all the schools arranging abortions for other peoples' kids without their knowledge and consent, the huge revenues the Church generates form its porn, condom and abortion interests, EWTN's most popular show 'Sex and the Sinner' and so on and so on.

What is it about Catholics?...

Are the Modernists getting Paranoid?

I am not invited to post on Val Farrell's blog (which I have mentioned before) since he closed it to public comment, after a couple of comments from me challenging some of the more idiotic things he was saying. (see previous posts here and here about his spamming invitation, his life is better when we engage philosophy, and his humpty dumptyness)

However, I was struck by this, in his comments about the invitation to the young of the diocese to attend the Holy Father's visit to England:

'I daw (sic) it to your attention now SOLELY for this sentence about the requirements of those chosen to attend: "someone who can stand up and tell parishioners what they have experienced, and who will also be a good witness amongst their peers".

Now it is just possible that I am wrong, but that sentence sounds to me like Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and the rest, who carefully "organised" in advance, the peoples' response to their every public utterance.

What a blessing this must be to diocesan newspapers up and down the land who now already know what the correct reaction to the papal Visit will be: joy, inspiration, holiness. Get working on those headlines right away. Blow the FACTS, we have already been told what the MESSAGE will be.

From all this, people can surely only conclude that Gospel Truth no longer matters; only the survival of the institution counts.'

Is it me, or is the non sequitur (from 'tell what they have experienced' and be a good witness' to 'correct reaction... joy, inspiration, holiness...') and the whole language of Stalinesque manipulation reading rather more into the sentence he analyses than it warrants?

Clearly from Val's perspective (remember his prayers for women priests et al) anyone who thinks the Holy Father is Holy or a Father is severely deluded - but nonetheless, I think this smacks of paranoia.