Now is a good time (Assisted suicide bill torpedoed) to remember the never-to-be-forgotten fiasco of our New Atheist friends, Dawkins, Robertson, Fry, Goldacre et al coming a humiliating cropper when they threatened to have Pope Benedict arrested.

Now is a good time (Assisted suicide bill torpedoed)  to remember the never-to-be-forgotten fiasco of our New Atheist friends, Dawkins, Robertson, Fry, Goldacre et al coming a humiliating cropper when they threatened to have Pope Benedict arrested. 

Pope Benedict XVI makes his famous address from the Waldegrave ballroom at St Mary's University College

How I loved that! What a humiliation! And Geoffrey Robertson just after he had received a papal blessing at a general audience with the Pope in St Peter's Square. How they fell on their faces. Their pathetic protest was brushed aside in the tide of affection and goodwill towards Pope Benedict. Wonderful days! They took it so badly. Dawkins went into a right sulk and blamed everybody but himself.

Richard Dawkins ... he went into a proper sulk

Geoffrey Robertson was just as bad. He went into a lot of twaddle about how he just happened to be in St Peter's Square and just happened to be there when the Pope arrived and just happened to be there when the Pope gave a blessing. Pathetic! He then denied that he had suggested having the Pope arrested - although he had stood shoulder to shoulder with Dawkins, Goldacre, Fry et al. Pathetic!

Geoffrey Robertson ... Pathetic!

(Christopher Hitchens had also been campaigning with this lot, but I will pass over that as he has now gone to meet the God he claimed did not exist. I'm sure God will be merciful to him.)

Christopher Hitchens ... now gone to meet the God he claimed did not exist

I started a thread about this on the TES Opinion Forum. It ran to almost 2,000 posts. How I made the clique squirm! It was another episode of "C'mon clique. Make my day."

WHY CATHOLIC CHURCH ANNULMENT IS NOT DIVORCE                            

 

---

---

DIVORCE

In the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 19:3-6, we find this exchange:

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”
He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

The whole of Catholic teaching on marriage is summed up in this passage. Protestant Christians and non-Christians often give Catholics grief over our Church’s firm stand that a valid marriage can’t be ended in this life by a simple civil divorce. Yes, the legal marriage contract can be dissolved and the spouses may go their separate ways, but in God’s eyes, the two remain one flesh, married for life. For either to remarry is adultery, plain and simple.
To non-Catholic (and even many Catholic) ears, that sounds harsh and uncompromising, and maybe it is. But there’s no denying that it is word for word what Jesus says in Matthew. To the extent that the Protestant denominations have compromised on this issue, they have compromised Scripture, and the direct and unambiguous teaching of Christ Himself.

Annulment

“But wait!” defenders of serial marriage will counter. “What about Annulment?” Isn’t the annulment process just the Catholic Church’s “workaround” on this? Not only do divorcing couples have to pay a lawyer and the courts to get their legal marriages dissolved, Catholics have to pay the Church, too, to get a “spiritual divorce?” If you can afford both, you’re free and clear, right?
Wrong. This uncharitable and, sadly, all-too-common non-Catholic sentiment reflects a gross misunderstanding of what the annulment process is and how it works.
Annulment is not “spiritual divorce.” It is, instead, the fruit of a full and thoughtful reading of this same passage in Matthew.
Christ does not say “… no human being must separate” and stop there. Instead, this valid command of God is half of a larger teaching communicated in the fuller statement – “What God has joined together, no human being must separate.” Which raises a very important question – How do we know that our marriages, however legal, have been spiritually “joined together” by God?
People get married for a lot of reasons. Some marry for love, some for companionship, some for convenience, others for sex, money, power, property or prestige. Many marriages occur in reflexive response to an unplanned pregnancy. In some cultures, marriages are arranged by the families, and the bride and groom may never have met before the wedding day. Are all these marriages equally “ordained by God?”
Probably not. Is a pregnant teenager fully responsive to the inner leading of the Holy Spirit when she bows to parental pressure and marries the baby’s equally teenaged father? Is God on the scene when a man or woman chooses to marry someone they don’t love in exchange for access to wealth or security? If an abusive and controlling man hides his real self behind smooth lies and charm throughout the courtship, only to reveal his true personality after the wedding, is that God’s doing? Has God truly “joined together” two fallen-away, Baptized Catholics who disregard Church teaching and get married before a judge at the courthouse? More importantly, does a legal, civil marriage in these circumstances (and many others that could be listed) create a true spiritual bond in which the two have “become one flesh” in God’s eyes?
Again, probably not. Where the Catholic injunction against divorce takes seriously Jesus’ command to “let no man separate,” the Church’s teaching on annulment gives equal and necessary weight to the question, “Has God brought this couple together?” Has this union, in fact, been drawn together by God, or might it be the result of mere human folly?
The Catholic annulment process is a lens focusing on this first half of Christ’s instruction in Matthew. For if God has not brought the couple together, then there really is no marriage. However long their legal, civil contract may have been in place, there has never, in God’s eyes or the Church’s, been a marriage.
So annulment does not dissolve a valid marriage. It is a judgment made, after much investigation and sober consideration, that no valid marriage ever existed in the first place. No “separation” is necessary because the two have never become one in the way Jesus is referring to in Matthew.
Christ teaches, and the Catholic Church affirms, that only God can create a valid marriage, and once that “joining together” has occurred, said marriage cannot be separated by the legal wrangling of mere mortals. Case closed.

The Miracle of Marriage

But that’s not the end of the matter. There is another layer to the Gospel passage quoted above that many overlook, a dimension revealing a deeper truth about God, marriage and reality that is downright miraculous in scope (here’s the Google definition of “miracle”: A surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is considered to be divine).
Beyond His surface response to the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce, Jesus is sharing a far greater, miraculous truth about God and His overarching role in our lives:
God is actively engaged in the everyday lives of human beings in an ongoing, purposeful process of “joining together.”
Not only does it matter to God who we marry, He is actively working, moment by moment in our lives, to bring each of us together with the one counterpart soul He has “created from the beginning” to be joined to ours. If we can resist the distraction of our lusts, our fears, our desires for self-aggrandizement, and all the other lures the world uses to tempt us off our spiritual course, and allow our souls to be prayerfully drawn by the quiet leading of the Holy Spirit, God’s plan will be fulfilled in our lives and, through us and our marriages, in the world.
Marriage is a fulfillment of God’s plan, not our own. We were created from the beginning with marriage in mind. Our valid marriages serve a purpose larger than our own desires, larger, perhaps, than we can even begin to understand.
And I find that awe-inspiring. I don’t think I’ve done this last thought sufficient justice in the course of this short essay, but I encourage you to take the baton and run with it, to work this realization out further in your own life and experience: God is actively “joining” you into the fabric of His purpose and plan in ways you cannot even begin to fathom. This is happening every day, whether you’re paying attention or not.
So, listen closely for His leading. Say “yes” to God, and “No” to worldly distractions and convenient compromises. Trust God to know what He’s doing, and where (and with whom) you need to be. Let Him lead. Let yourself be led.
And keep your eyes – and your heart – open for a miracle.

The Pope’s speech to Congress was superb

by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith

posted Friday, 25 Sep 2015

Pope Francis made a magnificent speech (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The Holy Father managed to deliver an address that challenged both sides of America's cultural divide

The Pope has spoken to Congress, the first Pope to do so, and by heaven, it was a good speech! Like all good speeches it worked on many levels. Here are a few of the things that struck me.
First of all, he pushed all the right buttons. He made reference to several telling phrases that all Americans hold in high regard, such as the famous words from the Declaration of Independence, and he presented himself to Congress as one of themselves, that is to say someone from the American continent, the New World. He was not talking at them, or even to them, but talking with them. It was a dialogue. This natural rapport with his audience is remarkable when you contrast it with, for example, his rather lame speech to the European Parliament back in November 2014, which drew a furious response in some quarters. There were no false notes this time, which is an indicator that a competent speech writer was at work behind the scenes.
The second thing the Pope did was that, having got his audience on side, he did not shy away from challenging them. There were challenges to both Left and Right in the speech: on abortion, on immigration, on poverty, on the death penalty, on the environment, on marriage and on family life. This is as it should be.
As I have observed before now, Pope Francis is an old-fashioned centrist (but leftward looking) Christian Democrat, and he shows that tradition, though defunct in many countries, still has life in it. Moreover, this is a strong indication to all Americans that the Catholic Church, once strongly aligned to the Democrats, now seemingly singing from a Republican hymn sheet, in fact is a transversal grouping. It belongs exclusively to neither the Right or the Left, but is in dialogue with both, and has a teaching that ought not be pigeonholed, but which can appeal to all. In other words, in the increasingly acerbic culture wars of contemporary America, the Catholic Church cannot and will not be appropriated by one side alone, but rather stands for dialogue with both side, hoping to promote an enriched conversation. The Pope’s speech makes some criticism of the Church as reactionary look rather silly. (Here is an example.) 
All Catholics should be grateful to the way a Papal correction has been applied to the perceived rightward drift of the Church. We must not allow ourselves to be seen as Republicans (or Conservatives in Britain), because one day the Conservatives and Republicans will be history, whereas the Church is here for the long duration. A perceived alliance with one political ideology will do the Church untold harm when that ideology dies. The Pope showed, however, that Catholicism cannot be reduced to a partisan position. His words will, one hopes, help the beleaguered pro-life Democrats.
In his spotlighting four figures of American history – Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton – the Pope, in creating this rather unusual line up, was doing something very clever. He was showing a sort of natural progression between the four, and thus taking the sting out of the all too common idea that Catholicism is foreign to the American spirit, given that the American founding fathers were so overwhelmingly Protestant. 
By talking about President Lincoln and Dr King, the Pope was almost retroactively appropriating them for the Church; certainly he was showing that there was nothing unCatholic about them: far from it, their aspirations coincided with the aspirations of the Church for a more just and better society. The social activism of Dorothy Day was placed in the tradition of Lincoln and King; and so interestingly, was the commitment to dialogue and contemplation of the mystic Thomas Merton. That Merton was identified first and foremost as a man of prayer (and I imagine that most members of Congress had up till now never heard of him) was a useful corrective, if any were needed, to the idea that social activism can be divorced from religious practice, and prayer above all. America could do with rediscovering the need for prayer (we all could) and the prayer of contemplation especially. If the Pope sends the members of Congress and others too scurrying for copies of Merton’s books, that would be wonderful.

Today I shall shed a manly tear at the passing of the Times Educational Supplement Opinion Forum

Today I shall shed a manly tear at the passing of the Times Educational Supplement Opinion Forum




Dear reader,

Come back with me to April 2005. I'm lazing back in an armchair in the school staffroom, my shoes off and my feet up on one of the adjacent armchairs. I'm flicking through the Times Educational Supplement when I come across an article about the TES website. Must investigate I thought. I did and that is how I discovered Opinion Forum. From that very day I have perused or posted on Opinion Forum. Something has now gone out of my life. I am bereft. If I ever get around to writing my memoirs I will not chicken out (unlike some I could mention!) of doing adequate justice to my involvement in that splendid project.


I remember my first post. It was addressed to the late Elaine C. She had been wittering on about some boring matter and I posted: 'Elaine, one day you will write an interesting post and pigs will fly over Uxbridge.' She was furious and launched into a tirade against me. Ha! Ha! Ha! Great memories. Very quickly after I got into a spat with some of Elaine C's friends, Mixu, Wordsworth, Inky et al. I'm afraid I lost it a bit and posted: 'You bitches! Call yourselves teachers? Ha! Ha! Ha! Don't make me laugh. I wouldn't give any of you a job as a cleaner in the lowest pissoir in Uxbridge.'


One of the first heavyweights I tangled with on the forum was Rob Steadman. Rob had the uncanny ability to keep four or five threads in the air at the same time. He was very knowledgeable but I had to correct him on several occasions about Oxford University. Then there was a very erudite poster named Jbloggs that I crossed swords with. He was an MFL teacher and a practising Anglican. We had a great ding-dong battle over the Church of England. It went to almost three thousand posts.


And all those usernames that I adopted: Existentialdyke, Nonexistentialdyke, Robert Pennington, Yarooleggoyoubeasts, Johnny Bluenote, Ralph Palladin, Gene Tunney, Albert Westphal, Gabriel 'Flash' Elorde, In You Go Jones etc. Then of course Big S. The Big S thread had I think the greatest ever number of posts on the forum. Remember Carol and Mr X who wore slip-on shoes with metal buckles and polo necks? OH! CAROLl! It developed into my novel, HEARTBREAK AT HILLINGDON HIGH. Then of course there was my old friend Detterling - he was posting under the username Selwyn in those days.

The first I remember of Detterling he was having a row with Sir Henry Rawlinson. I took Sir Henry's side and then Detters turned his guns on me. At the start most of the battles between me and him were over Mrs Thatcher's legacy but out of the blue Detters announced to all and sundry that he had a ginger nephew. Then all hell broke loose. Some forthright views were exchanged I can tell you. To ease things I invited Detters down for a day's fishing on the Grand Union Canal at Uxbridge. I had a spot in mind that is one of my favourites - Black Jack's Lock out towards Denham.



The Grand Union Canal towards Denham

 Black Jack's Lock

Yep, l had it all planned. I would meet Detters at Uxbridge Station, we would drive out to the Coy Carp pub and restaurant on the canal just  out beyond Harefield. I would park in the pub car park, we would have a beer and then head up towards Black Jack's Lock. This is a beautiful spot where the River Colne  flows alongside the canal. We would follow the towpath beyond Black Jack's Lock and fish the stretch out towards Denham. I would supply a Fortnum & Mason picnic hamper for lunch. Alas it was never to be. Sadly Detters declined my generous invitation. I guess here we got the first glimpse of the Tyneside bottle job he turned out to be.


Now this was August 2005. Back to the new academic year in September and there was such a buzz about Opinion Forum. Detters continued to draw a lot of flak from posters over his intransigence over his nephew. Self-righteous and inflexible he just could not be talked to. I did offer him wise and compassionate advice but would he listen? Would he hell.  It was plain to all of us that he was in serious denial - in particular about the very real dangers of the gay lifestyle. He was pompous and arrogant and of course completely dismissive of any poster who did not toe totally the pinko liberal line on these issues. What he couldn't seem to get into his Tyneside head was that posters were in no way condemning his nephew.  They were genuinely trying to help.   Indeed I myself posted: 'In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it is made clear that all forms of discrimination, abuse, disrespect, prejudice, hatred, insulting remarks are to have no place among us. Often such behaviour really reveals the latent insecurities about the abuser's own sexual identity.'          
                                                                       

Anyhow life went on and we were joined by some great new posters on Opinion Forum - in particular a very learned Aberdonian, Grunwald and a Headteacher who adopted herself the username, Middlemarch. Thling (who soon transmogrified into Cuteinpuce) was a well informed Catholic, and Existentialtyke, a solicitor turned teacher, kept us up to speed with legal matters in respect of educational issues..  Two acolytes of Detterling also made their appearance at this time: an awful Scots woman from the Gorbals named Seren_dipity and Bigkid, a total Mummy's boy. (If you are reading this Bigkid I do hope you are wearing your woolly vest. In these chilly evenings you could easily go down with something.)

Now in the next month or so something quite extraordinary happened. Something that stands out in the annals of the forum. One autumn evening Detters was engaged in a right spat with the poster Jjbloggs (Not the poster Jbloggs, the MFL teacher and active C of E member ). Can't remember what the subject of the discussion was - but that's irrelevant. Suddenly Detters threw in the towel. Yes, Detters threw in the towel and announced he was too dizzy to carry on! Who could believe it? What a craven surrender! What a bottle job! Nothing like it happened before or after on Opinion Forum. What a bottle job! In the following days, lambasted from all directions for being such a lily-livered so-and-so, Detters tried to excuse his appalling lack of backbone with all sorts of bluff and bluster. No dice! He was about as convincing as Andrew Neil's hairline. My goodness! Didn't Sir Henry give him hell for months over his yellow streak!


Nevertheless I think Detters benefitted by posting about his nephew. It was a way of letting it all hang out. A catharsis if you like. And that's fine. I actually did something of the same myself. I started a thread about my disastrous first marriage - well, I shouldn't say 'marriage' as it was annulled by the Church. A marriage in effect never existed. A couple of years before I had gone through counselling to try and come to terms with agonising flashbacks to that traumatic time in my life. I found the counselling helpful. I did get some sympathetic listeners on the forum thread and I felt this was also helpful. Not that in general everyone was sympathetic to Gene  -  far from it. But did I care? Millwall fans have a chant that goes something like: Nobody likes us... we don't care. Well that goes for me also.


By early 2006 I was becoming quite well known and quite well resented on Opinion Forum. I remember getting an email from a lady who had attended one of the TES meets - in Leeds if I remember correctly - and she told me that quite a bit of the talk had been about Gene. Then in February 2006 I started the Big S thread. Wow! Was it successful? Or was it successful? A brilliant wind up, it had the pinko liberal leftists grinding their teeth in fury. Detters was incandescent with rage. It led to my novel HEARTBREAK AT HILLINGDON HIGH. Let us recall the opening:

HEARTBREAK at HILLINGDON HIGH

A sneak preview of the opening of my novel HEARTBREAK at HILLINGDON HIGH. It tells the story of Carol, a stunning blonde teaching in the English department at HH, who falls for Mr X, a handsome, curly-haired Irishman who teaches in the MFL department at this same school. Mr X has soft brown eyes which are Sanpaku and is quite a charmer with a penchant for slip-on shoes with metal buckles and polo-necked jumpers. But Mr X has a dark secret...


EXTRACT:

Deputy Head Michelle Gove strode across the central quadrangle of Hilllingdon High. It was 6. 30am, a beautiful summer morning. A faint breeze wafted across carrying on it the rich tang from the  Grand Union Canal. The breeze dislodged petal blossoms from the flowering cherry trees and they landed in flocculent dustings on the neatly trimmed lawns. The janitor, chirpy Cockney, Nobby Clarkeson, came across from his early morning opening-up doors rounds.

'What a beautiful morning Nobby,' said Michelle, 'I always love this last Friday before the summer mid-term break. It makes one feel there's a God in heaven and that all is well with the world.'

'If you say so Mrs G,' Nobby acquiesced.

'Let's hope the remainder of this term is not disrupted by any more of those public sector strikes,' said Michelle.

'Don't get me started Mrs G,' said Nobby. 'Know what? I would have any teachers who go on strike taken out and shot in front of their forms.'

'Why Nobby that is exactly the view of the SMT in this school!' exclaimed Michelle. 'But have we got a government with the guts to implement such a policy?'

'Have we hell!,' snorted Nobby and disappeared in the direction of the toilets in a jangling of keys.

Michelle carried on across the quadrangle and caught sight of leather-clad Dale 'Larry' Grayson, the Head of Drama, parking his elaborately customized Honda Gold Wing motorcycle in the car park. 'Silly old poseur,' thought Michelle, 'and I don't care much for his pinko liberal politically correct views either.'

Michelle entered the main block and coming from the ajar door of the staffroom she could hear music playing lowly - the Beach Boys singing Sloop John B. Gingerly she pushed the door open and at the far end of the staffroom saw Carol slumped across a table, her blonde hair in disarray and an Ipod player cradled in her arms.

'My God Carol! Have you been here all night?' exclaimed Michelle.

Carol raised her head from the table and looked at Michelle. Carol was devastation personified. In answer to Michelle she handed her a tear-stained letter and said:

'On my way home after the twilight INSET session last night I found this in my pigeon hole. It's from Mr X.'

Michelle read slowly:

THE HEART HAS ITS REASONS WHICH REASON CAN'T FATHOM

                                                                                             Blaise Pascal

My Dearest Carol,                  

Where do I begin?  ...

Michelle finished reading and said to herself, 'I knew those slip-on shoes with buckles and polo-necked jumpers signalled something that would end in tears.'

Michelle had that indefinable feeling that someone else was near. She looked around and standing there was the notorious staffroom gossip, Amelia Wordsworth. 'Oh my God,' thought Michelle, 'this will be all around the school before morning break.'

                                        OH CAROL  ... NEIL SEDAKA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiTtfz2PZJw&feature=related

(To be continued)

Today is the Feast Day of Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina

Today is the Feast Day of Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina







Padre Pio was born in 1887 in the small Italian village of Pietrelcina. He joined the Capuchin Friars at the age of sixteen and was ordained a priest seven years later. For fifty years at the monastery of San Giovanni Rotundo he was a much sought after spiritual advisor, confessor, and intercessor whose life was devoted to the Eucharist and prayer. Yet despite such fame, he would often say, "I only want to be a poor friar who prays."






St. Pio of Pietrelcina

Born to a southern Italian farm family, the son of Grazio, a shepherd. At age 15 he entered the novitiate of the Capuchin Friars in Morcone, and joined the order at age 19. He suffered several health problems, and at one point his family thought he had tuberculosis. He was ordained at age 22 on 10 August 1910.

While praying before a cross on September 20, 1918, Padre Pio received the stigmata. He is the first priest ever to be so blessed. As word spread, especially after American soldiers brought home stories of Padre Pio following WWII, the priest himself became a point of pilgrimage for both the pious and the curious. He would hear confessions by the hour, reportedly able to read the consciences of those who held back. He was reportedly able to bi-locate, levitate, and heal by touch.

In 1956 he founded the House for the Relief of Suffering, a hospital that serves 60,000 a year. Padre Pio died on September 23, 1968 at age 81.

Today there are over 400,000 members worldwide in prayer groups begun by Padre Pio in the 1920s.

His canonization miracle involved the cure of Matteo Pio Colella, age 7, the son of a doctor who works in the House for Relief of Suffering, the hospital in San Giovanni Rotondo. On the night of June 20, 2000, Matteo was admitted to the intensive care unit of the hospital with meningitis. By morning doctors had lost hope for him as nine of the boy's internal organs had ceased to give signs of life. That night, during a prayer vigil attended by Matteo's mother and some Capuchin friars of Padre Pio's monastery, the child's condition improved suddenly. When he awoke from the coma, Matteo said that he had seen an elderly man with a white beard and a long, brown habit, who said to him: "Don't worry, you will soon be cured." The miracle was approved by the Congregation and Pope John Paul II on 20 December 2001.

Archive: Five years ago Benedict XVI routed his enemies and brought joy to the British faithful

by William Oddie

posted Wednesday, 16 Sep 2015

Benedict XVI arriving at Edinburgh Airport in September 2010 (CNS)

    

We republish the following blog, originally published on September 20, 2010, to mark the fifth anniversary of Benedict's papal visit to Britain

How does one sum up the papal visit in a few words? A survey of the four days, event by event – four days which began (so far as I am concerned) in anxiety which quickly turned to relief and ended finally in euphoria – simply can’t be done in less than the length of a short book, and I have only 400 or 500 words for this post, though in the print edition of the paper which appears later this week I shall be given more than double the space for an extended version of it, in which I shall look also at the very interesting coverage of the visit by the secular media. That aspect of the visit will have to be briefly summarised here by the words of Dr George Carey in the News of the World: “he came, he saw, he conquered”.

The richness, volume and sheer variety of the teaching the Pope gave us, and its perfect suitability for each of its many very different audiences, ranging from his intellectually hugely impressive address to the leaders of civil society in Westminster Hall to his call to that enthusiastic audience of schoolchildren to aim at becoming saints, was astonishing. And perhaps the first thing that needs to be said is that this was above all a personal triumph for the Holy Father himself. What came over consistently was the huge warmth, the seemingly inexhaustible loving kindness of the Pope’s gentle but nevertheless powerful personality. After all the caricatures, the man emerged.

Despite his intellectual impressiveness, which was evident throughout, everyone now knows that this is no withdrawn, scholarly rigorist, incapable of relating to people or understanding their lives: this alleged coldness, it was widely claimed, was what explained the supposed lack of enthusiasm about the visit, even among Catholics.

Well, we will hear no more now about his purported lack of charisma, an assessment invariably followed with a comparison, to Pope Benedict’s disadvantage, with John Paul II. Pope Benedict is, we have now all seen, hugely charismatic: but his charisma is of a different kind, less dramatic, less forcefully energetic than that of Pope John Paul.

Of course; they were always very different men: but Pope Benedict has all the charisma he needs, and in both the senses given by the Oxford Dictionary: 1) “a compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others” and 2) “a divinely conferred power or talent”. For, in the end, let us never forget that what we have witnessed has come from God, whose presence has been very close throughout not only to the Pope himself but also to all who were praying for his success – protecting, inspiring, allaying our fears and in the end fulfilling all our hopes.

Spiritual stock taking

Spiritual stock taking


On my Medjugorje pilgrimage back in August I did some serious self examination.


And hey! I didn't come out so bad. Okay some issues - who doesn't have any?


This is what I found:


One or two - or maybe three or four traces here and there of self aggrandisement. Oh! well! At least I'm being honest.


Now, I do sometimes overindulge in alcohol. Usually during school holiday time in the Good Yarn. But hey! I'm a writer. So many great writers have liked a tipple: F Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Jack Kerouac, Brendan Behan, James Joyce, Jack London... I'm in good company.


Then of course there is the odd incidence of lack of charity. Witness the goading and mickey-taking of the Church of England Busybody. But, it's usually just rollicking good fun.


So there you are. This guy is spiritually sound.



Confession is good for the soul

Another Open Letter To Detterling

Another Open Letter To Detterling


Detterling I'm on a roll at the moment. The Assisted Suicide torpedoing was terrific. I feel just as good as when Pope Benedict vanquished the New Atheists.


Also things are so different in teaching at the beginning of this new academic year. Last year I was on a downer but this year I feel great. I'm on the home straight. January 2017 is in sight. Glorious retirement and the time and opportunity to concentrate on my career as a writer! People say I exude bonhomie and in the staffroom I am dispensing advice in avuncular fashion to our new cohort of teachers. (And by the way the new HT is proving a fine captain of the ship.)


There is nothing you can do to derail me Detters.


Your ears must have been burning last Friday night. What a celebration we had in the Good Yarn! The Assisted Suicide vote of course, but also we celebrated your latest banning from Opinion Forum. You were quite rightly banned for naming names. Despicable!


We also celebrated you being called a pseud on Opinion Forum a couple of weeks back. Now, in all my long career I have never been called a pseud. It's a terrible thing to be called. You should reflect on this seriously.



The Good Yarn   ...  what a night of celebration!

What this overwhelming defeat means for the assisted suicide lobby

by Madeleine Teahan

posted Friday, 11 Sep 2015

Protesters stand outside the Houses of Parliament in London as MPs debate the Assisted Dying Bill (PA)

Parliament is unlikely to debate another Bill on the issue for years to come

I’m sure I wasn’t the only one shaking when MPs voted by a majority of 212 against assisted suicide this afternoon. The implications of the vote were enormous. For a moment it had seemed as if Britain was about to become a society in which suicide was prescribed on the National Health Service as a “remedy” for terminal illness.
What’s significant about the vote is not just that assisted suicide was rejected, but that it was rejected so overwhelmingly. This means that a Bill licensing assisted suicide is unlikely to darken Parliament’s door for many years to come. We have debated the issue vigorously in both chambers and the elected house has rejected assisted suicide decisively.
The lazy argument that the opposition to assisted suicide is driven by religious zealots has also been demolished. The 212 MPs in the House of Commons who gave up their Friday to vote with the their feet and walk through the No lobby were not a swarm of fanatical Bible-bashers – as funnymen like David Baddiel and Lee Hurst imply. No, they were doctors, nurses, lawyers, believers and non-believers.
The experience of both Scotland and now England and Wales demonstrates that, while legislators often feel a knee-jerk sympathy for supporters, when they examine the evidence they realise how dangerous assisted suicide is.
Only today, Ben Howlett MP said that the debate in the chamber changed his mind on assisted suicide and that he had decided to oppose the Bill.
Lord Falconer’s Bill will not be allocated parliamentary time now and so campaigners have hit a legislative cul-de-sac, leaving the courts as the only viable way forward for pursuing their case.
But the latest Supreme Court ruling on the so-called “right-to-die” simply encouraged Parliament to debate the issue – which it has now dutifully done.
Our elected representatives have held the “open and honest debate” that supporters of assisted suicide have incessantly demanded. Our judiciary must remember that when the next “hard case” stands before them.

MPs overwhelmingly reject Assisted Dying Bill

HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

It's a throwback to when Pope Benedict XVI vanquished the New Atheists

The House of Commons has voted on the Assisted Dying Bill (PA)

Rob Marris presented his private member's Bill in the House of Commons today

MPs have voted to reject the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Rob Marris MP.
The vote, which came after almost five hours of impassioned debate on both sides, resulted in 330 against the Bill and 118 in favour, a majority of 212.
The Bill, proposed by Labour MP Rob Marris, was based on Lord Falconer’s Bill which ran out of time in the House of Lords before the general election.
It would have allowed people with fewer than six months to live to be prescribed a lethal dose of drugs; they would have to be capable of taking these themselves. Every case would have had to be approved by two doctors and a High Court judge.
When the issue was last debated in Parliament in 1997 it was rejected by 234 to 89.
In a statement Archbishop Peter Smith of Southwark, the chairman of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship for the bishops’ conference, said he now hoped that “excellent practice in palliative care” would become a focus of political action.
He said: “I welcome Parliament’s recognition of the grave risks that this bill posed to the lives of our society’s most vulnerable people. There is much excellent practice in palliative care which we need to celebrate and promote, and I hope now the debate on assisted suicide is behind us, that this will become a focus for political action.
“I am encouraged by the participation of so many Catholics throughout England and Wales in this important discussion and hope that everyone involved will continue to support calls for better quality care as life nears its end.”

Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' law. HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

Assisted Dying Bill: MPs reject 'right to die' law

HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!

We shall lift our glasses in celebration in the Good Yarn tonight!!!

Image copyright PA

Image caption People for and against the assisted dying bill were campaigning outside parliament today

MPs have rejected plans for a right to die in England and Wales in their first vote on the issue in almost 20 years.

In a free vote in the Commons, 118 MPs were in favour and 330 against plans to allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with medical supervision.
In a passionate debate some argued the plans allowed a "dignified and peaceful death" while others said they were "totally unacceptable".
Such legislation has repeatedly failed to pass through parliament.
A doctor-assisted dying bill was rejected by MPs in 1997 and attempts to take legislation through the House of Lords ran out of time before the general election this year.

The latest attempt was brought before the Commons by Rob Marris, the Labour MP for Wolverhampton South West.
Under the proposals, people with fewer than six months to live could have been prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, which they had to be able to take themselves. Two doctors and a High Court judge would have needed to approve each case.
Prime Minister David Cameron was not present at the debate, but a spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has made his views clear on this issue before, he is not convinced that further steps need to be taken and he is not in favour of an approach that would take us closer to euthanasia."

Jump media player

Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Media caption Rob Marris, Caroline Spelman, Crispin Blunt, Lyn Brown, Keir Starmer, Nadine Dorries and Dr Liam Fox speak for and against the Assisted Dying Bill

Opening the debate, Mr Marris said the current law did not meet the needs of the terminally ill, families or the medical profession.
He said there were too many "amateur suicides, and people going to Dignitas" and it was time for parliament to debate the issue because "social attitudes have changed".
Mr Marris added: "The law in England and Wales has not got the balance right.
"This Bill would provide more protection for the living and more choice for the dying."
Mr Marris said he did not know what choice he would make if he was terminally ill, but said it would be comforting to know that the choice was available "to have a dignified and peaceful death at the time of my choosing".

Image copyright Thinkstock

Fiona Bruce, the MP for Congleton, said the bill was so completely lacking safeguards for the vulnerable that "if this weren't so serious it would be laughable".
Her impassioned speech concluded: "We are here to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not to legislate to kill them. This bill is not merely flawed, it is legally and ethically totally unacceptable."

The law on assisted dying around the UK

Euthanasia, which is considered as manslaughter or murder, is illegal under English law.
The Suicide Act 1961 makes it an offence to encourage or assist a suicide or a suicide attempt in England and Wales. Anyone doing so could face up to 14 years in prison.
The law is almost identical in Northern Ireland.
There is no specific law on assisted suicide in Scotland, creating some uncertainty, although in theory someone could be prosecuted under homicide legislation.

The Conservative MP Caroline Spelman added that "the right to die can so easily become the duty to die" and she said the law already provided protection for the elderly and disabled.
She was one of many MPs to argue that it was difficult to determine whether someone had six months to live.
She also warned: "[The bill] changes the relationship between the doctor and their patient, it would not just legitimise suicide, but promote the participation of others in it."

Jump media player

Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Media caption Jeffrey Spector's wife, Elaine, and daughter Keleigh explain why he wanted to end his life legally

In a lengthy speech, Labour MP Sir Keir Starmer told MPs about prosecution guidelines he developed in his role as director of public prosecutions, when he had to deal with a number of 'right to die' cases including Debbie Purdy and Tony Nicklinson.
But he warned that his guidelines had shortcomings without a change in the law.
He said: "We have arrived at a position where compassionate amateur assistance from nearest and dearest is accepted, but professional medical assistance is not unless you have the means of physical assistance to get to Dignitas.
"That, to my mind, is an injustice we have trapped within our current arrangements."

Jump media player

Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Media caption Michael Wenham, who suffers from motor neurone disease, believes some disabled people could feel pressure to relieve carers of the "burden" of looking after them

An emotional Dr Philippa Whitford, the SNP's health spokesperson and a breast cancer surgeon, argued that with good palliative care the "journey can lead to a beautiful death".
"We should support letting people live every day of their lives till the end," she said, and she urged MPs to vote for "life and dignity, not death".
Justice Minister Mike Penning closed the debate, saying he opposed the bill for two reasons - firstly because he didn't think it should be an excuse that "we can't control pain in the 21st century".
He also said he was against suicide because he had seen the painful aftermath of far too many.

Reactions to the vote

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said the result of the vote showed "how ridiculously out of touch MPs are with the British public on the issue".
"With the overwhelming majority of the public supporting the Bill it is an outrage that MPs have decided to retain the current law which the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the House of Lords, and the public all believe is leading to suffering and injustice for dying people."
Dr Peter Saunders, campaign director of Care Not Killing, welcomed the rejection of the legislation, saying the current law existed to protect those who were sick, elderly, depressed or disabled.
"It protects those who have no voice against exploitation and coercion. It acts as a powerful deterrent to would-be abusers and does not need changing."
But Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, chair of Inter-faith leaders for Dignity in Dying, said he was saddened by the failure of the bill because it dashed the hopes of those "who wish to avoid ending their days in pain or incapacity".
He said he hoped MPs would revisit the issue at a future date.

Where others stand on assisted dying

• The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, said the bill would mean suicide was "actively supported" instead of being viewed as a tragedy.
• One of his predecessors, George Carey, backs assisted dying saying that there's nothing dignified about experiencing pain at its most awful.
• The campaign group Care Not Killing said the legislation was "dangerous" because it would send out a chilling message about how we value and treat vulnerable people.
• While the group Dignity in Dying says the "overwhelming majority" of the public support assisted dying.
• The British Medical Association, the doctor's union, opposes all forms of assisted dying.
• And the Royal College of Nursing takes a neutral stance.

An open letter to Detterling

An open letter to Detterling

Detterling you write: 'You are one of the nastiest people I have never met -'

Two things. You have never met me. You were given two opportunities. Firstly when I invited you down, ten years ago in the school summer holidays, to spend a day fishing with me on the Grand Union Canal at Uxbridge. I even offered a Fortnum & Mason hamper for lunch. You declined my invitation. Then, on the 25th November 2006, you were given the opportunity to meet me at the now demolished Duke of York pub at Kings Cross station in London. YOU ARRIVED LATE BY WHICH TIME I HAD GONE HOME   -  AFTER ACCUSING A TOTALLY INNOCENT BYSTANDER OF BEING YOU.

Also Detters, I am not nasty. I am kind and compassionate. Witness over the years how I have consistently advised you wisely in respect of guidance re the lifestyle of your nephew. And by the way I have posted on here a couple of weeks back on how Pope Francis' nephew praises Pope Francis to high heaven for being a kind, considerate and generous uncle. Could your nephew say the same about you? Methinks not.