MISSION STATEMENT ... To celebrate where it's deserved! ... To take the Michael out of institutions and individuals where it's deserved! ... Recently I had occasion to prepare my gravestone epitaph: GENE... Educator, Novelist, Humanitarian and Humorist - TO KNOW HIM WAS TO LOVE HIM - Rest in Peace ....... But while I am still walking the earth do not hesitate to contact me at: bobbyslingshot8@gmail.com
Monday, 12 October 2015
Monday, 5 October 2015
Pope Francis proclaims that marriage is forever
Pope Francis proclaims that marriage is forever

At 10 am , the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Pope Francis presided at the Mass in St. Peter's Basilica for the opening of the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the theme: 'The vocation and mission of the family in the Church and in the contemporary world.'Below is the Vatican-provided translation of the homily Pope Francis delivered during the Mass:
***
“If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us” (1 Jn 4:12).
This Sunday’s Scripture readings seem to have been chosen precisely for this moment of grace which the Church is experiencing: the Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on the family, which begins with this Eucharistic celebration. The readings centre on three themes: solitude, love between man and woman, and the family.
Solitude
Adam, as we heard in the first reading, was living in the Garden of Eden. He named all the other creatures as a sign of his dominion, his clear and undisputed power, over all of them. Nonetheless, he felt alone, because “there was not found a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:20). He was lonely.
The drama of solitude is experienced by countless men and women in our own day. I think of the elderly, abandoned even by their loved ones and children; widows and widowers; the many men and women left by their spouses; all those who feel alone, misunderstood and unheard; migrants and refugees fleeing from war and persecution; and those many young people who are victims of the culture of consumerism, the culture of waste, the throwaway culture.
Today we experience the paradox of a globalized world filled with luxurious mansions and skyscrapers, but a lessening of the warmth of homes and families; many ambitious plans and projects, but little time to enjoy them; many sophisticated means of entertainment, but a deep and growing interior emptiness; many pleasures, but few loves; many liberties, but little freedom… The number of people who feel lonely keeps growing, as does the number of those who are caught up in selfishness, gloominess, destructive violence and slavery to pleasure and money.
Our experience today is, in some way, like that of Adam: so much power and at the same time so much loneliness and vulnerability. The image of this is the family. People are less and less serious about building a solid and fruitful relationship of love: in sickness and in health, for better and for worse, in good times and in bad. Love which is lasting, faithful, conscientious, stable and fruitful is increasingly looked down upon, viewed as a quaint relic of the past. It would seem that the most advanced societies are the very ones which have the lowest birth-rates and the highest percentages of abortion, divorce, suicide, and social and environmental pollution.
Love between man and woman
In the first reading we also hear that God was pained by Adam’s loneliness. He said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen2:18). These words show that nothing makes man’s heart as happy as another heart like his own, a heart which loves him and takes away his sense of being alone. These words also show that God did not create us to live in sorrow or to be alone. He made men and women for happiness, to share their journey with someone who complements them, to live the wondrous experience of love: to love and to be loved, and to see their love bear fruit in children, as today’s Psalm says (cf. Ps 128).
This is God’s dream for his beloved creation: to see it fulfilled in the loving union between a man and a woman, rejoicing in their shared journey, fruitful in their mutual gift of self. It is the same plan which Jesus presents in today’s Gospel: “From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’. 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” (Mk 10:6-8; cf. Gen 1:27; 2:24).
To a rhetorical question – probably asked as a trap to make him unpopular with the crowd, which practiced divorce as an established and inviolable fact – Jesus responds in a straightforward and unexpected way. He brings everything back to the beginning of creation, to teach us that God blesses human love, that it is he who joins the hearts of two people who love one another, he who joins them in unity and indissolubility. This shows us that the goal of conjugal life is not simply to live together for life, but to love one another for life! In this way Jesus re-establishes the order which was present from the beginning.
Family
“What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk 10:9). This is an exhortation to believers to overcome every form of individualism and legalism which conceals a narrow self-centredness and a fear of accepting the true meaning of the couple and of human sexuality in God’s plan.
Indeed, only in the light of the folly of the gratuitousness of Jesus’ paschal love will the folly of the gratuitousness of an exclusive and life-long conjugal love make sense. For God, marriage is not some adolescent utopia, but a dream without which his creatures will be doomed to solitude! Indeed, being afraid to accept this plan paralyzes the human heart.
Paradoxically, people today – who often ridicule this plan – continue to be attracted and fascinated by every authentic love, by every steadfast love, by every fruitful love, by every faithful and enduring love. We see people chase after fleeting loves while dreaming of true love; they chase after carnal pleasures but desire total self-giving.
“Now that we have fully tasted the promises of unlimited freedom, we begin to appreciate once again the old phrase: “world-weariness”. Forbidden pleasures lost their attraction at the very moment they stopped being forbidden. Even if they are pushed to the extreme and endlessly renewed, they prove dull, for they are finite realities, whereas we thirst for the infinite” (JOSEPH RATZINGER, Auf Christus schauen. Einübung in Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe, Freiburg, 1989, p. 73).
In this extremely difficult social and marital context, the Church is called to carry out her mission in fidelity, truth and love. To carry out her mission in fidelity to her Master as a voice crying out in the desert, in defending faithful love and encouraging the many families which live married life as an experience which reveals of God’s love; in defending the sacredness of life, of every life; in defending the unity and indissolubility of the conjugal bond as a sign of God’s grace and of the human person’s ability to love seriously.
To carry out her mission in truth, which is not changed by passing fads or popular opinions. The truth which protects individuals and humanity as a whole from the temptation of self-centredness and from turning fruitful love into sterile selfishness, faithful union into temporary bonds. “Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love” (BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 3).
To carry out her mission in charity, not pointing a finger in judgment of others, but – faithful to her nature as a mother – conscious of her duty to seek out and care for hurting couples with the balm of acceptance and mercy; to be a “field hospital” with doors wide open to whoever knocks in search of help and support; to reach out to others with true love, to walk with our fellow men and women who suffer, to include them and guide them to the wellspring of salvation.
A Church which teaches and defends fundamental values, while not forgetting that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk 2:27); and that Jesus also said: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mk 2:17). A Church which teaches authentic love, which is capable of taking loneliness away, without neglecting her mission to be a good Samaritan to wounded humanity.
I remember when Saint John Paul II said: “Error and evil must always be condemned and opposed; but the man who falls or who errs must be understood and loved… we must love our time and help the man of our time” (JOHN PAUL II, Address to the Members of Italian Catholic Action, 30 December 1978). The Church must search out these persons, welcome and accompany them, for a Church with closed doors betrays herself and her mission, and, instead of being a bridge, becomes a roadblock: “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren” (Heb 2:11).
In this spirit we ask the Lord to accompany us during the Synod and to guide his Church, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
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
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?”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.
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.”
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.
Saturday, 26 September 2015
The Pope’s speech to Congress was superb
The Pope’s speech to Congress was superb
posted

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
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.
Wednesday, 23 September 2015
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,
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.)
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.
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

The Grand Union Canal towards Denham
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:

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:
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:
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
'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.'

(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


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.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)