world of nic

e-mail sent to Muslim colleague after discussions with an atheist

2011-06-17T12:55:00.000+01:00

The problem with the Godless is that they work all their morals out from a false premise - which they believe are "first principles", whereas we work ours out from the word of God and/or the divinely inspired writings/thoughts of others. As they don't believe in God, they find our starting point ridiculous and thus all our conclusions.

They generally believe in moral relativism until we cross their line - then we're just idiots who base our morals on "fairy stories".

As I'm a moral absolutist, I know they're wrong. ;-)

Catholic churches around Reading

2010-12-17T22:34:00.000Z

Let us start with the most impressive church, the Polish community's Sacred Heart of Jesus (between town and the RBH).

Now, for Pugin's beautiful St James (next to the Prison).

The slightly austere St William of York (where Latin Mass takes place) up near the University. Lovely Masses and a beautiful statue of Mary.

This next picture is of my Parish, Our Lady of Peace and Blessed Dominc Barberi (at the traffic lights on the Wokingham Road). Built in 1970s and looks it; there are, unsurprisingly, very few pictures on the internet. The inside of the church proper is an octagon! (What were they thinking?)

Here's St John Bosco, Woodley (where I did my RCIA). The outside doesn't do it justice. Despite being only a few years older than Our Lady of Peace, the inside is both beautiful and serene. Honest!

St Anne's in Caversham. Looks a bit better from the other side. Has a shrine. I've never been in it.

Haven't been over to Tilehurst to see this one, but English Martyrs certainly seems impressive!

Finally, here's Christ the King in Whitley. Haven't been here either, but I like it's traditional proportions.

Catholic bloggers for Libel Reform - Fight for Free Speech

2010-11-11T12:05:00.000Z

Yes it's not just your favourite left-wing comedians and evidence-based scientists who want libel reform, it's us, too: your friendly, neighbourhood Catholic bloggers who are open to attacks by our current ludicrous system. (Not that this blog is exclusively about Catholicism, but there you go).

The image and text below is taken from the wonderful Red Maria's blog entry.

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law; a law which is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

In light of recent events on the British Catholic blogosphere, Catholic bloggers should be particularly aware that English libel law is a pernicious tool in the hands of bullies everywhere.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers who are generally not backed by publishers and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

Priestly bloggers face the additional threat of being abandoned to their fates by the very bishops who should be supporting them as a matter of principle.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. The campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel but it is imperative that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they keep their promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

You can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

The current situation is untenable; English libel law is the most censorious libel law in the democratic world. It serves established interests at the expense of freedom of speech and expression. It must be reformed for the good of everybody and for the good of the Church.
We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at

http://www.libelreform.org/sign

On Student Finance

2010-11-10T21:12:00.001Z

Some advice to students to help them stop extending their debt:

Don't buy a car, you don't need one. Walk, cycle, catch a bus if necessary.
You do not need designer clothes or accessories. These can wait until you have an income.
Don't smoke. It's seriously expensive, not good for you and does not make you look cool/counter-culture/working class. It makes you look like a twat.
Don't take drugs. They're also expensive, can affect your ability to learn and also turn you into a twat.
Keep your drinking down. Binge the odd time, but not every week and drink somewhere cheap.
Eat cheap. I ate shed loads of lentils & rice (with varying curry powders). You are not a gourmet; you have no money.
Don't eat out. Make your own sandwiches.
Don't go to expensive coffee shops.
Don't go to Glastonbury/Reading/etc.
Don't even think about going on holiday.
Get a job in the long vac. Every year.
Don't take up an expensive hobby or collect stuff.
Don't buy a gaming PC - you're meant to be working on it.

On University Tuition Fees

2010-11-10T20:52:00.000Z

Some quick, confused thoughts on both sides of the argument, from one man: me.

You can't blame any one of the three major parties. In the end, they all agreed on it.
Why isn't income tax from all those highly educated people enough?
Isn't this a stealth tax?
Shouldn't we just reduce the number of numpties attending University and bring courses back to their pre-1986 standards?
Some Universities are better than others, shouldn't they be allowed to "get more money"/"charge more" per-head?
Are fees really that bad then?
Isn't this another way of de-hypothecating tax? (You must pay for Trident, wars, abortions in China, the EU through hypothecation, but don't let a self-made man pay for bloody students). Hmmm.
Don't forget to donate to your old Uni to reduce fees for current and future students.

Ooh. Android.

2010-10-25T23:26:00.001+01:00

So it appears I can blog from my phone. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to, but if push came to shove, I could.

Happy X10 Mini owner.

Android FTW!

On Politics (Addendum)

2010-10-25T14:42:00.000+01:00

I forgot to point out (to those that do not know me) that I don't agree with all the issues raised in my last post, On Politics. Some are merely echoes of what I perceive to be popular opinion.

Also, @edwestonline retweeted this (originally tweeted by @charlottegore with a fine bit of sarcasm):

CharlotteGore Charlotte Gore

by edwestonline

This page is not remotely biased. It does not gently nudge you in any particular direction. http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

This unbelievably naïve piece seems to have been written by a 13 year old with no knowledge of the "right" at all. To caricature one's opponents so badly shows one's general ignorance on all things political.

At the bottom, that old chestnut (and favourite of LibDems), "the political compass" gets mentioned. I'm not a fan, but at least it shows that the one dimensional left-right axis is wrong, but it is amazing how many people then take it as read that there are two and only two dimensions to consider.

As I proposed (although I can not be the first) in my last post, there are n-dimensions to be considered, yet just 3 major parties, leaving large proportions of the population unrepresented on many of their core beliefs.

On Politics

2010-10-24T20:58:00.000+01:00

OK, I'm not an expert in politics, but I'm more interested than most. I'm a member of a political party, but sometimes I wonder why.

Over recent years there has been a change in politics which leaves many of us, from the left and right, disenfranchised. Who do we vote for when the major parties no longer represent us?

On the right, in the UK, we've seen the rise of UKIP as an alternative to what is sometimes seen as a centrist Conservative party. In the US, the Tea Party movement is a true grass-roots movement, where the right of the Republican party are making their voice heard.

In the UK, the Labour party has moved far from its roots and being the voice of the poor and lowly paid. Indeed, as many point out, it has become the party of the metropolitan, liberal left, guilty of

showing contempt for all rural issues and thus the rural working class
ignoring concerns of the working class about immigration
deliberately suppressing any sense of national pride (English or British)
imposing liberal values on the nation, leaving social conservatives unrepresented

Indeed, conflating the fact that non government supporters shift their political view further to the opposite end of the spectrum than the government of the day, Labour's ignoring of the opinions of their traditional supporters may have helped push people to the far-right parties.

With many of the general populous' concerns actually being about immigration, and this basically being hobbled by our EU membership, it is no wonder that people feel frustrated with the consensus amongst the three main parties.

Perhaps party politics is now permanently broken. The left-right axis is but one in multi-dimensional, political space, ignoring social conservatism vs liberal ideals, immigration, patriotism, the Union of the United Kingdom, multiculturalism, Europe, the environment, religious freedom and many other issues. Other than holding referenda on everything, how do the people get their politics back?

The Smoking Ban Must Stay

2010-10-14T17:17:00.001+01:00

I am completely bemused as to why anyone would want the smoking ban rolled back in any area. This article is in response to David Nuttal MP's rather confused thinking in this post.

Freedom

"[The] Erosion of our freedoms"

Governments are not only about allowing the people to act as they please, they are also here to protect the populous from stupid decisions they may make.

Smoking in the first place is a bad decision; smoking indoors is even more so as you will be inhaling the passive smoke from your own and everyone else's cigarettes at higher concentration than outside. If we follow right-wing thinking that making a bad choice is your fault and the government should not help you out, that would translate to no NHS treatment for the many smoking related diseases. That's inconsistent, which leads us nicely to the next section.

Consistency

"I believe the principle of freedom ought to be consistently applied by politicians who claim they believe in it, and its outcomes"

If you wish to be consistent in allowing people to use life-shortening substances (indoors), then you're clearly one of those liberals who thinks that drugs should be de-criminalized and allowed. "Hey - it's your choice." Except, you're not one of those wooly-minded liberals are you David?

Subsidarity

"I believe in devolving power to the lowest possible level and the matter of smoking in pubs and clubs is one of those very issues which should surely be decided by publicans and, ultimately, their customers or club members"

I look forward to the government devolving all speed limits to the most local level. And drug policy. And prostitution's legality. Smoking indoors and smoking are public health issues which the central government has a right to mandate. Why not say that the minimum smoking, drinking and even sex age should be set locally?

Straw men and falsehoods

"The strongest argument for the smoking ban is that smoking causes diseases and even death. I don’t deny this but then car drivers injure and kill people too"

This is a straw man, plain and simple and as such shall be ignored. Let us move on.

"It’s quite wrong to ban something which is a perfectly legal pursuit just because you don’t like that something and Tories need to fight those who do go down this route with vigour"

This is a classic Tory (and liberal) argument, where you say something that is illegal is in fact legal just because you think it should be legal.

The Sadness of Pubs and Clubs Closing

"I have been increasingly concerned about the effect [the smoking ban] has had on [private clubs and public houses]" including "the closure of many pubs"

Mr Nuttal does concede that this is not the only reason to force closure and indeed may just be "the straw that broke the camel's back", but is that really such a bad thing? Surely this more efficient alcohol supply structure should be applauded by a conservative?

Don't give me that flannel about pubs being some sort of social meeting device, we aren't talking about idyllic village pubs from some halcyon era, we are talking about the over-abundance of over-priced drinking establishments in urban areas. Is it such a bad thing that these places close? I would contend that in the majority of cases, it is not.

Future Non-smoking pubs

"I know that some pubs and clubs would remain non-smoking places if the ban was lifted – that’s the whole point. It should be up to them to decide"

Seriously, David: how many? The free market will mean that all smokers and their friends will gravitate to the smokers' pubs, so the others will eventually drop their own "ban".

Really this sort of ivory-tower, principle-following ad absurdum is one thing I do not expect from today's Conservatives.

On homosexuality

2010-10-03T22:42:00.000+01:00

(From an a disq.us post I made on the Telegraph website).

I am not a top class theologian as anyone knows, but _my_ reading of scripture shows that homosexuality is in Mosaic law (most of which we do not adhere to) and St Paul has a bee in his bonnet about it at one point.

Quite how that is extrapolated into it being Christian doctrine is beyond me. The Catholic argument is, I believe, based on that particular Mosaic law (Leviticus 18:22) being based on "natural law".

I suppose the question then comes down to what is "natural"? If you're in the majority heterosexual camp and haven't met many "out" homosexuals, you may believe that only straight people are normal. If you've met enough gay people (or are gay yourself) then you may be enlightened enough (some people would view this as deluded enough) to realise that homosexuality is normal, and furthermore, that many people are _born_ that way. If God lets people be born gay, then surely it is natural?

Of course, I realise I am going against the teachings of the church on this one issue, and this greatly saddens me. I pray, constantly, for help with issue and that should I actually be correct that those in authority will receive revelation from the Holy Spirit in these issues.

Tatchell and co. could never have arrested the Pope.

2010-09-09T18:26:00.000+01:00

So Tatchell etc. have finally admitted/realised the obvious fact that the Pope is a Head of State and as such can not be arrested in this country. (Thus showing this all to be another publicity stunt for which the idiot media fell). But moreover, does he understand the law of Citizen's Arrest? I think not.

Let us examine at Wikipedia's page on Citizen's Arrest in England and Wales (which is hopefully correct) and we see that Head of State or not, Tatchell couldn't lawfully arrest the Pope.

1. Permissibility.

Where an offence has been committed without doubt, anyone who is without doubt guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it

Well, given that he has no evidence to back his claims up, there definitely is a lot of doubt!

2. Lawfulness

It appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead

I believe there will be a substantial Police presence. Surely one of them could arrest him if given sufficient evidence? Anyway, the following must also hold for it to be lawful

The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following:
The person causing physical injury to himself or others

The person suffering physical injury

The person causing loss of or damage to property

The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him

The person being able to violate a restraint order

Clearly none of these hold.

It is a shame that the law of the land is so strict as otherwise any of us could walk up to Peter Tatchell, Dawkins, etc. and arrest them for slander of which they are clearly guilty. It's also a shame that they can hide behind this special case:

stirring up religious hatred under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986

(which thanks to section 29J and their constant targeting of the Pope as a single person, is nearly useless anyway).

Homonyms

2010-09-07T17:29:00.000+01:00

In 1444 I was in Reims http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/pdf/sa/L-727-746.pdf

In 1640, I was a labourer in Maing (Northern France). http://www.maing-aspm.fr/pages/population_1680.htm

In 1740 I sub-let a mill from Christian Bender in Luxembourg http://wallonia-asbl.be/bender1.htm

In 1794 I was a Sailor, owed £900 by that damned Charles Blandin in Haiti http://frph.pagesperso-orange.fr/notaire-jeremy.htm

I am currently in an orchestra in Belgium http://unionpetitdour.jimdo.com/qui-sommes-nous/

No wonder I feel so old.

Oracle vs Google. .NET and Mono

2010-08-16T09:51:00.002+01:00

Miguel de Icaza (Mr. Mono) has written an excellent piece on ORCL suing GOOG over Android/Dalvik.

Oracle, as Sun, extracted $1.6bn from MSFT, and $900m of this was for patents. So we can safely assume that Microsoft's .NET implementation is covered by this deal.

Now Miguel and Mono folk will be crowing about how wonderful the Microsoft Patent Licence Grant is (and it is a generous gift). However, one small point: Mono is also likely to be in breach of Oracle's patents, but Microsoft do not have the rights to confer these rights to Mono.

So Mono folks - you're just as likely to get a visit from Oracle as Google, or at least you would be, if NOVL had a Market Cap 50-100 times the size of it's current woeful state.

Birmingham Three

2010-08-15T23:24:00.003+01:00

On twitter, @SplinterSunrise wrote "Basically, any Catholic blog worth its salt should have something up on Brum Oratory. This will not stand".

This blog isn't worth it's salt, but here are a few that are, and have covered the Brum Three in better detail than I could.

Splintered Sunrise
Dolphinarium
John Smeaton, SPUC Director
Free the Birmingham Three
Catholic and Loving It
and of course Damian Thompson at The Telegraph

Many more blogs are out there covering this.

Who's the more oppressed: LGBTs or Catholics?

2010-08-13T20:45:00.000+01:00

If you're a member of the LGBT community, you have the majority of the British media on your side. Contrary to common misconception, the Catholic Church (and her communicants) do not hate you. The CCC explicitly says not to. (The official line is that the act is a sin, but being gay, etc. is not. And we're all sinners!)

If you're a Catholic, you have 6 centuries of cultural indoctrination against you, the entire British media against you (except a subsection of The Telegraph), the terribly trendy NSS etc., and apparently a large vocal part of the LGBT community.

Dear LGBT community, we don't hate you; we don't say you're evil, so stop saying it about us.

This post is slightly tongue-in-cheek. But only slightly.

Comments turned off

2010-08-06T09:38:00.000+01:00

Regrettably, I have had to turn off comments on this blog.

Catholic conversion and women bishops.

2010-07-11T00:51:00.000+01:00

(For those who don't know I'm a Catholic convert from a C.of.E. upbringing).

So the Anglicans will follow their logical course by allowing women to become "Bishops" (a name which Damian Thompson points out, is a historical accident). But for some reason this (like the ordination of women 18 years ago) will force some to leave the Anglican faith for Rome. I suppose I should be glad, but to me this seems a rather superficial and shallow reason for suddenly deciding that the Pope is the supreme pontiff, revering Mary, asking the saints for their intercession, and last but not least that Jesus is physically present in the Blessed Sacrament.

By all means, listen to the Holy Spirit and let him guide you towards the truth, but don't just change the most important part of your life on some gynophobic, knee-jerk reaction.

(Note: for the interested, I may have become a Catholic, but I can't see anything wrong with having women priests. The official Catholic teaching is in the CCC 1577).

In other C.of.E. news this week...

As you may have read, the Church of England has failed to promote the gay but chaste Very Rev Jeffrey John, as the new Bishop of Southwark.

Now, the fact that the Very Rev Jeffrey John does not have sex with men, surely makes him celibate and, in some existential sense "not a homosexual", so why didn't they give him the bishopric?

(Note: for those interested, I am a heretic and do not hold with the Catholic teaching on homosexuality (CCC 2357 - 2359). I believe that it is natural and on an equal parring with heterosexuality).

Con Dem thoughts

2010-05-15T19:02:00.000+01:00

OK, so now that things have settled down a bit (mainly my emotions) I think I can look more rationally at the result of the election, and more importantly our new government.

Heads up: I'm left wing and green. I'm no fan of the Tories, and while I appreciate many LibDem ideas, I don't like some others.

We did not get an overall majority government, which means that we either have a weak Conservative government, a Conservative government with LibDem support or a coalition. In reality, a "progressive rainbow alliance" of the Labour, LibDems and sundry others, would have been too weak to perform effectively. A Conservative LibDem coalition is the only stable game in town, and it is certainly democratic, which is the most important thing.

As for what will happen in this ConDem government (an obvious moniker that I coined in this tweet) well I have several good bits of news

The Labour Government was not green. We've already seen Heathrow's 3rd runway cancelled under the ConDem coalition.
David Cameron is not that right wing. He's fairly central, and unlike certain other Tories, he appears to care. He's not left or centre-left, but he's certainly no Lady Thatcher.
It's a COALITION. That means both sides have to COMPROMISE. So far, they seem to be pretty good at it. This means that the Tories can't just have their own way; on several things theywill have to tone down their view or implement the LibDem policy instead. (For some reason journalists don't understand this and keep trying to jemmy open a gap between the coalition members).

It's not going to be plain sailing for them, and they have sensibly and honestly admitted as such. But it's not an ultra right wing government and it's not a Tory government either. Take a deep breath. Things could be so much worse.

Local Election 2010

2010-05-09T23:37:00.001+01:00

Would someone like to explain to me how this result represents the will of the people? With 46% of the vote, the Tories got 100% of the seats! And that's just one ward. Across the council, it's even worse.

Maiden Erlegh Ward - Number of seats: 2

Election results for Maiden Erlegh Ward
Name	Party	Votes	Elected
Eastwell, John Robert	Liberal Democrats	2083
Miall, Kenneth John	Conservative Party Candidate	2161	Elected
Rupert, Jacqueline Earla	The Labour Party Candidate	1077
Smith, Caroline Ann	Liberal Democrats	2016
Swaddle, Paul Stanley	Conservative Party Candidate	2254	Elected

General Election 2010

2010-05-08T18:41:00.002+01:00

First the good news

The Tories did not get an outright majority
BNP vote imploded
Greens got their first MP!

Now the bad news

Labour did pretty badly
The LibDems did unexpectedly badly
The Tories got the most seats of any party
The LibDems and Labour between them don't have half the MPs

ConDem and PR

But it appears that the bad news keeps coming. The LibDems seem to be pursuing talks with the Tories at quite some length. I'm taking this as a bad sign. I suspect this means we'll have a Tory government with a couple of LibDems on the cabinet who won't be able to veto anything. Moreover, I can't see the Tories allowing us to move to Proportional Representation, which was going to be the only silver lining out of this fiasco.

LibDem surge and fade

I'm not a LibDem, but I do agree with many of their positions/policies, such as

anti Iraq war
anti-trident
proportional representation
an elected upper house

The debates showed us that we do not have a two-party system in England, unfortunately, the 3rd debate and more importantly, the last week of the election went awry for intelligent, caring people, because of the right wing media.

The Media

Like all elections in this country, the media have done their damnedest to get a Tory government. For years the media have manipulated the public about immigration. Stupid bigots have always existed in this country, but the media successfully made this an election issue. I don't know anyone who cares about immigration; the only people I've met who have read The Sun or The Star yet live in rural areas. They've probably never met an Eastern European.

This media-led, right-wing obsession with immigration (and also Europe) played nicely into the Tories hands. The last week, the volume was distinctly turned up on these issues to drown out any progressive or caring ideals.

What Labour did wrong

Well, the bloody wars for a start. The other right-wing things Blair did. Having your microphone on while saying something that was in fact true, but slightly rude. Brown not being a 21st century pretty boy politician.

But worse than that, they got the blame for the global financial crisis, for allowing the banks to stay deregulated (which the Tories actually did). For not understanding the intricacies of the banks which the banks themselves didn't either.

Finally, the government of the day also seemed to get all the stick for the expenses scandal. Yes, we expected better of Labour MPs (whereas Tory MPs are expected to have their hands in the till) but to give them to blame for all of it?

Favourite pastiche record cover

2010-04-21T10:01:00.000+01:00

Original:

Pastiche:

Tories and hunting

2010-04-14T12:03:00.000+01:00

The Tories want to have a free vote in the next parliament to repeal the hunting ban.

Democracy?

75% of people want to keep the ban in place, so what possible democratic reason could there be to attempt to change the law? Could it be that they misguidedly see this as a vote winner in rural areas? Could it just be that Cameron and his cohorts are more likely to have been on hunt, or have friends who hunt than the rest of us? In which case it's more of a case of self-legitimation for the elite than democracy.

"It doesn't work" or the "unenforceable" argument

You'll hear pro-hunt supporters say "it doesn't work". Wrong: over 130 people have been prosecuted since it became law. So that's one fallacy out of the way. But why would saying something is unenforceable stop it being law? You could argue that drug use is unenforceable, because so many people flount the law. But no, this curious, teenage-rebelion, "you can't stop me" argument isn't used by teenagers but by so-called respectable countryfolk.

Countryside Alliance

The Countryside Alliance is a single-issue, pro-hunting organisation, who pretend to be the voice of country people. They are not. While some people may be fooled otherwise, it is all just a cover for their bloody-mindedness.

One reason for the mild popularity of the Countryside Alliance (and the more impressive support of the Tories) in rural areas is because Labour really seemed to drop the ball completely on rural issues. In fact, I would go so far as to say Labour are negligent in their care of rural areas and arguably, don't care at all. Because of this unjust treatment, people tend to turn away and look for anyone who will appear to on their side. Even if (in the case of the Countryside Alliance) it's just mere flannel.

A Conspiracy of Silence

Both the Tories and the Countryside Alliance are keeping quiet about hunting. You don't hear Cameron banging on about it do you? Hard working families, cutting beauraucracy, cutting tax, but not a minority of people participating in bloodsports.

More amusing and/or upsetting are stories like this one from the BBC trying to get people from the Countryside Alliance or the Tory party to talk about hunting. They won't. Surely this means that they know it's a vote loser? It's unpopular, it's barbaric an the majority don't want it. But they're still going to try and push it through anyway, the people be damned.

A Waste of Parliamentary Time

The pro-hunt lobby a priori and post factum judged the hours spent debating the hunting act as a waste of parliamentary time. But it's funny how re-opening the debate is not a waste of time. Clearly "waste of time" is purely judged by whether you'll be left worse or better off after the event. (In other words, they are hypocrites).

How far would you go to protect your brand?

2010-03-19T14:58:00.000Z

Most companies these days will go quite a long way. From threatening to silencing employees to legal action to stop unflattering events being reported in the press. We even get "celebs" taking part in such shenanigans to protect their own "brand".

This doesn't just happen in those sectors. I know of one university who told staff and students to remain quiet over a kiddie-porn affair involving a post-grad (who was obviously sent down). The internal politics and weak management of third sector organisations provides a hotbed of unease, back-biting which can eventually lead to such draconian measures. We are also more than aware that politicians play this game every day of the week.

But now imagine that your organisation believes it is the moral authority for all mankind and is thus the source for telling people what is good and what is evil. Your brand is to be good beyond measure. So what happens when you employ people who commit the most morally evil act of our age: sexual acts with a minor? Do you a) have an open and robust policy involving removing that person from duties immediately and contacting the authorities? b) thing you're protecting your brand by covering up these heinious acts?

Apparently many people in the Catholic Church mistakenly thought that b) was an option. It was never an option. Even if you believe that organisations can protect themselves by keeping certain misdemeanours secret, this crime is against moral law and can not be kept "in house". Moreover, we know that those who commit these offences against nature are usually serial re-offenders. (Did people not know that in the 60's - 80's?)

Moving these so-called priests from parish to parish was not just an error of judgement, it was, in itself, an act of evil or at the very least, criminal negligence. Covering up anyone's crime was also an evil act, as it is a lie: a terrible, evil lie that offends the victim, God and the whole Church.

Back to the victims (who receive little press in either the anti or pro-Catholic media): sexual assault at any age (but especially amongst minors) leads to severe mental health problems in later life. It is hard for most people to imagine the state of mind and world view such a victim would end up with. But when done by someone in authority, particularly one who claims the moral authority of God and is someone we should all look up to, it must be even worse. But then to be told be quiet by further priests (of varying ranks) or just find out that the Church (as an institution) had colluded to help the perpetrator walk away, scot-free while you are left with the array of conflicting emotions must be too hard to bear.

Anyone involved in any cover up of this nature should come forward, admit their mistake and prepare to be dismissed. You have sinned against everything that the Church stands for and destroyed its good name. You have helped ruin many young people's lives and no doubt driven some to suicide. Their blood is on your hands. God will forgive you, but I doubt any victim or their families and friends ever could.

The Seamless Garment

2010-03-03T21:12:00.002Z

I despair of Right Wing Catholics at times. For all we have in common, the reactionary, narrow-mindedness they can display drives me to despair. To be specific, let's talk about "being Pro-Life".

To your typical Right Wing Catholic, this covers abortion and possibly euthanasia and assisted suicide, but generally they only care about abortion. For whatever reason, this form of unnatural, premature death is the only one that upsets them.

This explains one reason that Republicans are so up in arms against Obama's health plan. Not only will he be allowing the poor a right to receive treatment (how dare he!) the bill may (and let's face it, will) allow state-funded abortions.

On that ground, and that ground alone, they are willing to condemn millions of poor people to a life without free health access. How Christian.

Now this brings us on to the title of this post the Seamless Garment or Consistent life ethic. This consistent, moral point of view is one that is against "legal abortion, capital punishment, assisted suicide, economic injustice, euthanasia and (unjust or all) wars." For any moral law to be true, it has to be consistent.

However, Right Wing Catholics don't care about economic injustice, or they wouldn't be Right Wing. (I don my flame-proof underpants at this point to ignore answers about "poor life choices", "socialism", not interfering in corrupt regimes with no oil, etc.)

Indeed, in this very country, the head of SPUC said

"The 'seamless robe' or 'seamless garment' approach to pro-life issues has been debunked by, among others, Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "supreme court" of the Catholic Church)"

followed by a quote from ++Burke,

"it falsely places intrinsically evil acts, that is, acts which are always and everywhere morally wrong, on the same plane with acts which, according to prudent judgment, may not sufficiently safeguard human life.”

This statement is incorrect and the disproof, facile. Putting children and adults health and well-being and thus prevent them from an otherwise early death is clearly safeguarding human life. To say otherwise is pure sophistry. To say that denying people access to healthcare and condemning them to an early grave to stop state-funded abortions is evil.

The seamless garment theory is correct and to deny it is to turn "being Pro-life" into a twisted, incorrect, single-issue form.

My sometimes contradictory beliefs.

2010-02-11T15:42:00.003Z

I'm left wing of some description. Perhaps I believe in Modern Social Democracy but I couldn't really put a specific label on my political beliefs. I certainly believe in taxing the rich much more than we do. However, I resent my personal tax burden. (Tax the really rich and leave the lower middle classes alone!) See Mark 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."

I'm a Catholic and all Christians should believe in human rights as we're all equal (and that life begins at conception). But against the teachings of the Church, I believe that homosexuals have the right to marriage and a physical relationship in such. What about Leviticus 18:22, you say? I say that I am not a biblical scholar, who has spent years in exegetical study, but I do know right from wrong. God is love and love is love and homo non separet.

No one has the right to be a Scientologist though: it's not a religion, it's a joke.

I'm an environmentalist, but own a car. (It is a Prius, but it's still a car). I believe in public transport but can't stand using it.

I believe in animal rights but failed at being a vegan (after 12 years).

I believe in free (libre) and open source software, but sometimes use proprietary software.

I still believe in proportional representation, free education and healthcare for all, better cycling facilities, a decent rail system, subsidised buses, vegetarianism, fair trade, organic foods and open standards.

I am totally against hunting, animal testing, the fur trade, software patents and capital punishment (for any crime).

I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal and wrong. ID Cards and the Trident replacement are a waste of money that will not help society.