Dolphinarium

Questions to which the answer is yes

2012-01-04T14:17:00.000-08:00

Countercultural Father asks whether SPUC has lost the plot.

This is how I will remember 2011

2011-12-31T14:43:00.000-08:00

It's one of the incredible scenes of protest in Cairo's Tahrir Square, which forced the ousting of a blood-stained kleptocracy and embodies all the joyousness of the Arab Spring. True, the battle is far from over in Egypt but just for once, bliss it was that dawn to be alive and I thank God Vaclav Havel lived to see it.

Do we have to go on like this?

2011-12-31T14:28:00.000-08:00

Remember this moment?

Or this one?

Or this one?

I'm sorry to have to spell things out so bluntly to you but ask yourselves in all sincerity whether you are content with the fact that Pro Life in the UK is about as threatening to the status quo as Mr Bean would be to Mike Tyson at his most ferocious prime.

If your answer to that is a resounding NO then take another look at my post about SPUC and please, reflect on it.

SPUC: Nothing Doing

2011-12-30T17:46:00.000-08:00

Unlike the loftier kind of Kartholick I think the blogosphere and social media is great for Catholicism. The speedy exchange of information, the cleansing disinfectant of sunlight being shone on murky corners, the crackle of commentary zipping through cyberspace, unfiltered and unspun rebalances the scales of power in favour of the ordinary orthodox worshipper at the expense of the superannuated bureaucrat.

That's the positive side of the blogosphere balancesheet accounted for. There is a debit column too to which one is constrained to enter the inevitable wasting time. Vanity publishing at the click of a mousepad is one hell of an easy way to while away the hours one should be spending on more productive activities, hence the twitter and facebook blocks many employers slam on their computer systems. All this brings me neatly to the subject of SPUC, or more specifically John Smeaton since tanto monta, monta tanto, they arguably amount to the same thing.

In January 2008 the John Smeaton SPUC Director blog-of-sorts (it doesn't allow comments so can't be called a real blog) was launched and boy did he take to sort-of-blogging like a duck to water. In fact it's difficult to tell what else he does other than broadcast his views on such diverse issues as homosexuality, homosexuality and er, homosexuality day after remorseless day.

Contrary to the impression given by the description of SPUC as "a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion", there's precious little evidence that Smeaton's SPUC engages in anything so vulgar as parliamentary lobbying and that's without going into the difficult relationship it has with Pro Life parliamentarians. Indeed if one is so bold as to enquire what precisely SPUC Smeaton is doing politically to achieve its aims one is typically met with a variety of dog-ate-my-homework excuses for its doing nothing. As to education, well nothing was done about this particular story. Note this, dear reader, when I say nothing was done, I mean Nothing and that that Do Nothing policy was determined right at the very top of the organisation.

I suppose there's a twisted logic to Smeaton SPUC's Do Nothing policy. Doing something at work would distract from the crucial business of sort-of-blogging and there's no denying how seriously that's taken. Why, it's a veritable team effort as Smeaton makes clear, graciously acknowledging the help of SPUC's staff, supporters and advisers for their help in researching, writing and producing his sort-of blog.

For more on this sorry state of affairs see Caroline Farrow's superb blogpost, Society for the Purgation of Unorthodox Catholicism and her follow up post, Building for Life.

Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T15:49:00.000-08:00

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace,
good will toward men.

Vaclav Havel, Anti Racist

2011-12-23T17:23:00.000-08:00

Wonderful tributes to Vaclav Havel who stood against anti-Roma racism here.

Heroes

2011-12-23T17:10:00.000-08:00

Prague archbishop remembers Havel as friend, 'fellow prisoner'

By Catholic News Service

PRAGUE (CNS) -- Calling former Czech President Vaclav Havel a "friend and fellow prisoner," the president of the Czech bishops' conference said the entire nation owes Havel a debt of gratitude for its freedom and the new flourishing of Czech life and culture.
Archbishop Dominik Duka of Prague, who was imprisoned with Havel by the communists, asked that the bells of all Catholic churches in the Czech Republic ring at 6 p.m. Dec. 18 in memory of the former president who died that morning at the age of 75.
The archbishop, who met Havel in prison in 1981 and continued to meet with him after the end of communism in 1989, was scheduled to celebrate Havel's funeral Mass Dec. 23 in St. Vitus Cathedral.
"He knew the loss of freedom, the denial of human dignity, oppression and imprisonment," Archbishop Duka said in a statement posted Dec. 18 on the Czech bishops' website. "I am convinced that everyone across the country, regardless of political or religious beliefs, owes him honor and thanks."
Havel, a playwright and essayist, was one of the founders of the Charter 77 movement, which began criticizing the communist government of then-Czechoslovakia, particularly for its lack of respect for human rights, in 1977.
He served four years of hard labor and nine months in prison for dissident activities before becoming head of state after the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" that toppled communism. He resigned in 1992 when Slovakia declared its independence, but was elected president of the Czech Republic six months later.
Havel met Pope Benedict XVI during the pope's trip to Prague in 2009. He met Blessed John Paul II at least five times, three of them in Prague, and Havel attended the late pope's funeral at the Vatican in 2005. The two men admired one another and saw each other as participants in the same battle for freedom, human rights, human dignity and respect for the cultures of Eastern Europe.
In an interview with a Polish Catholic news agency in 2000, Havel said, "John Paul II is someone very close to me, who continually startles me with his personality and inspires me."
"His language, constantly stressing human dignity and recalling the rights of man, has been a novelty in the papacy's history. If the pope had been someone else, from another part of the world, without the historical experience of Poland, he probably wouldn't have had such a clear attitude to totalitarianism. John Paul II's services in this area are undeniable," he said.
He also told the interviewer that in April 1990 he made his confession to Pope John Paul during the pope's first Czech pilgrimage while under the spell of the pope's "charismatic personality."
"I suddenly realized I was in fact confessing in front of him, even though I'm not accustomed to going to confession, since I'm not a practicing Catholic. I felt the need because of the great will to understand the other person that emanates from the person of the pope," Havel said.
L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, noted that Havel attended a Mass of thanksgiving in St. Vitus Cathedral immediately after his inauguration in 1989, restoring a practice Czech leaders had followed for centuries until the communists came to power.
"That ceremony was not only the recovery of an ancient liturgy that united politics and tradition, culture and religion, but represented the beginning of a new history, a history of freedom of which Vaclav Havel was the most important symbol," the newspaper said.

Vaclav Havel

2011-12-23T16:58:00.000-08:00

I hope you will forgive me, dear reader, for this frank display of emotion.

Vaclav Havel like Pope John Paul the Great, like Laszlo Tokes, Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Evgenia Ginzburg and countless others resisted and bore witness to the horrors of Stalinism.

It is difficult to quantify in mere words just how magnificent Havel's legacy is. Let me put it in terms of a wry Eastern European joke: freedom is the ability to stand in the street and shout "this government is rubbish" without fear of reprisals.

Or putting it another way, there are people alive today who live without fear because of Vaclav Havel.

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

2011-10-02T18:42:00.000-07:00

Pastor Youcef Nadarkani is an Iranian Evangelical Christian pastor. He has also been sentenced to death. The two preceeding sentences are not unrelated, since it appears that he has been sentenced to death for being an Evangelical Christian. Some four times he has been pressured to recant his Christianity; each time he has refused to do so.

We know of his appalling case thanks to Christian Solidarity Worldwide - see its briefing on Pastor Nadarkhani here - which is campaigning for Pastor Nadarkhani's life and freedom of conscience.

We also know about Pastor Nadarkani thanks to leading Catholic blogger, Caroline Farrow, who has been unsparing in her efforts to raise awareness of this awful story. Read her superb post here and if you haven't already done so, please email and phone the Iranian embassy expressing your grave concern for Nadarkhani. Caroline has helpfully provided a template letter for your guidance.

The world knows about Pastor Nadarkhani thanks to campaigning lawyer and New Statesman writer, David Allen Green. Green, an Atheist whose commitment to human rights descends from the Enlightenment tradition has been tenancious in following the Nadarkhani story. When he writes, governments sit up and take notice. The Foreign Office released a statement not long after Green blogged about Nadarkani, as did the US State Department and so too did the Iranian Embassy in London.

Perhaps stung by the growing international clamour for Nadarkhani's life and liberty, the official Iranian news agency has recently been putting it about that Pastor Nadarkhani has been sentenced to death for rape and extortion and even more chillingly, claimed that he is a Zionist.

The New Statesman's Mehdi Hassan's eloquent denunciation of the death sentence levelled upon Pastor Nadarkhani as not only unIslamic but anti-Islamic was a perfect exposition of the humane heart of the Islamic faith and one which which Moslems all over the world will echo.

Meanwhile, in the very quarters that Nadarkhani should expect the strongest support, that is to say among Western Christian leaders, there has been unsconscionable silence, as both Archbishop Cranmer and Damian Thompson have noted with understandable disgust.

In a Flather about fertility

2011-09-23T14:28:00.000-07:00

She's at it again! Dolphinarium's favourite politician, Baroness Flather, has hauled herself back onto her pet hobby horse: children and why there should be fewer of them especially among certain sections of the community.

This time dear old Shreela used the occasion of the second reading of the government's Welfare Reform Bill in the Lords, a piece of legislation she admitted in her opening remarks that she "found very difficult to understand" to argue that "people should not be getting the full raft of benefits for any number of children."

She elaborated,

"I feel that the first two children should get a full raft of benefits, the third child should get three-quarters and the fourth child should get a half."

The Baroness observed that minority communities in the UK, she specified Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, "have very large numbers of children" and demonstrating her noteworthy skills as a reader of human minds, opined that "the money that follows the child is an attraction".

She went on,

"there is no doubt that six or seven children give you a far larger income than three or four. I think it is about time that we stop people using children as a means of increasing the amount of money that they receive or of getting a bigger house."

Notice the emphatic language the Baroness used in making her point? The twin themes of barely-concealed disgust at the Asian immigrant working-classes and their fertility on the one hand and coercion, on the other - "it is about time that we stop people" were reinforced in her closing peroration:

"In the countries of origin, these people-Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and even Indians-have large families because there is no safety net. When you get old, it is only your children who are going to look after you. That does not apply here. Every old person will have their pension and will be looked after. It is time to introduce the pattern of this country and to tell people that they must start following it."

As my opening paragraph makes clear, this isn't the first time that Baroness Flather has suggested that the less well-off should be told to have fewer children.

Six years ago she ventured substantially the same argument that she would make in the Lords last week, positing a correlation between smaller families and better educational outcomes and singling out fecund Bangladeshis for particular haughty disapproval. Last week Flather, who hails from a top-drawer Indian mercantile family - her great grandfather, Sir Ganga Ram, was a noted philanthropist - again referred disapprovingly to large Bangladeshi families, who she bracketed with Pakistanis in her Lords' speech as having "no emphasis on education" which indicates how mightily exercised she remains about these communities' fertility patterns. She went qualitivately further in the Lords, however, by arguing for a system of financial disincentives for those with more than two children, thereby passing into serious anti-natalist policy territory.

It remains only for me to note that the noble Baroness holds a senior position in an organisation which provides its services in a country which has one of the most notorious anti-natalist policies of our times and which enjoys such warm relations with that country's government that it hosts discreet tête-à-têtes between its senior personnel and that country's minister for the creepily entitled State National Population and Family Planning Commission at its London offices. Baroness Flather is a director of Marie Stopes International.

(Naughty) Thought for the Day: Just because Dorries says it doesn't necessarily mean that it's wrong

2011-05-09T17:17:00.000-07:00

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.

The shock, the horror!

Then an underwear model gets up and holds forth on the benefits of sex'n'relationships education.

On mad cows and abstinence

2011-05-09T15:17:00.000-07:00

Somewhere on ye olde twittersphere the copulationologist community is getting its knickers in a twist about an MP who has had the nerve - the nerve, if you please - to mention the A word* in a ten minute rule bill.

This has been taken as an unreasonable attack on the ~~promotion of contraceptive and abortifacient drugs and devices to captive young audiences~~ transmission of impartial information by the said community and before you mention it, all that talk about condoms and cucumbers or is it bananas is nothing more than a myth advanced by the tabloids and we should invent a game called SRE bingo to show what a load of rubbish it is because in fact, the copulationologist community desires nothing more than good quality, comprehensive sex 'n' relationships education which inter alia teaches young people communication skills, reduces fear, stigma and anxiety and moulds a generation of young people into the kind of virtuous citizens who have the social skills and common courtesy to say please and thankyou for fellatio and there follows an example of the kind of good quality, comprehensive material teenagers (not children, what do you think we are?) should be exposed to but may not be if that evil misogynistic witch gets her way.

Children as young as 13 are being advised on oral sex, anal sex, orgasms and being good in bed in a booklet published by the fpa, formerly the Family Planning Association.

Entitled Love, Sex and Relationships, the booklet is aimed at 13- to 16-year-olds, although the legal age of consent is 16, and is being distributed to schools and youth groups.

[...]

The booklet advises teenagers how they can tell when they are ready to have sex and contains cartoon characters saying: "I like to touch myself" or "I like to dress up as a girl" and "Does my crotch look big in this?" In the section on oral sex, it says: "Many people enjoy it; others aren't interested. Often called a 'blow job' when done to a man and 'going down' when done to a woman."

*Abstinence, to delay temporarily or desist entirely from sexual activity. An inflammatory term which suggests that humans can control their sexual urges. Not to be confused with claims made by copulationologists that sex education encourages delaying sex.

Simply Staggering

2011-04-13T15:01:00.000-07:00

Laughs aplenty, heckling, a man blowing an actual whistle - God, can it get any better than that - and undoubtedly stormy applause at Saturday evening's hot ticket New Statesman/Frontline ~~Julian Assange cult meeting~~ free speech debate. Some 900 people crammed into Kensington Town Hall to have the chance to hear our sleek navy-suited hero and a cluster of other luminaries debate the propostion "This house believes that whistleblowers make the world a safer place."

I love this sort of thing, really I do and not just for the opportunity to see one of the sexiest issues de nos jours given a good workout by some of the greatest champions of free speech ever.

Speaking of which, I'm sure the unfortunate business of Craig Murray, Our once-upon-a-time man in Tashkent, being disinvited from the panel was nothing more than a mix up, just one of those things. Maybe someone better qualified to make the case for whistleblowing suddenly became available. Murray who crowned his dull, uneventful career by revealing that intelligence linking the Islamic Movement for Uzbekistan with Al Qa'eda was gained through torture would have been an adornment to the panel, to be sure but couldn't have brought the same gravitas and relevance to the debate as, say, the delightfully named Clayton Swisher.

It's always important to retain a sense of perspective about these matters. The champagne flute-clinking world of modish media crusades which comes bedecked with demi-mondaines and countercultural brand names is as fickle as any fashion editor; hems go up, hems go down, jetsetting whistleblowers are the new flares of light in our murky world, yesterday's stern critic of a periodical's spinelessness is today's showcased ally.

If Julian Assange isn't minded to allow a pesky little thing like a deleted blog post about controversial Iraqi billionaire, Nadhmi Auchi on the Staggers' website disturb his tranquility why should anyone else?

Back in 2008 Wikileaks editor Julian Assange claimed that

"The New Statesman, in agreeing to Auchi’s terms, would defame him and Wikileaks by implying that the site’s content was inaccurate. In a letter to the New Statesman, Assange warned ‘Our organisation’s reputation for professional, accurate investigative journalism is our primary asset. As both the New Statesman and Wikileaks are globally read publications, we will consider taking action against the New Statesman in the most suitable jurisdiction or jurisdictions.’ Assange said the New Statesman should not be party to what he terms Auchi’s ‘mischief’, pointing out that Wikileaks had never been approached by Auchi or its lawyers about the material it hosted."

But that was three years ago. Hemlines have risen, fallen and risen again since then. A highly regarded political editor may have departed in the wake of the Auchi contretemps but at least now the Staggers can now glory in an edition have been guestedited by a member of the celebrated Puddleduck family. And let's not say a word about NUJ chapels or how much interns are or are not paid.

...With a modest set of demands

2011-01-11T17:39:00.000-08:00

I’d like to see good governance in the Church. One of the most frustrating things about Catholic affairs is the uselessness of ecclesiastical bureaucracies. Not merely in terms of the sexual abuse scandal – though that shines a particularly harsh light – but much more generally.

To which I fully subscribe.

Read the rest of 'em here.

But will she stick around for a few more pictures?

I don’t want to make rash promises

Ever the tease ...

Garbo Returns ...

2011-01-11T17:31:00.000-08:00

Here

Happy New Year

2010-12-31T16:00:00.000-08:00

As ever, I love you all.

Wesołych Świąt Bożego Narodzenia!

2010-12-24T14:06:00.000-08:00

A strong woman for libel reform

2010-11-15T16:41:00.000-08:00

Mulier Fortis is the latest big name Catholic blogger to speak up for free speech.

The Catholic blogosphere demands libel reform

2010-11-15T11:47:00.000-08:00

The Catholic blogosphere's response to scientist Simon Singh's campaign for libel reform has been outstanding.

The latest bloggers to back the campaign are The Conventual Church of St John of Jerusalem who aptly noted that the sheer variety of people backing the campaign, many of whom would have little in common with each other in ordinary circumstances is "an indication of the serious concern with which many in our society now feel for the maintenance of free speech."

And one of the biggest beasts in the Catholosphere jungle, His Hermeneuticalness himself, who posted a characteristically erudite and measured blog entry which eloquently made the case for libel law reform. He said:

It is important to have a libel law. If someone writes seriously damaging things about you that are false, you should have some redress against them. To obtain a retraction, an apology, and some reasonable financial compensation is fair enough if your reputation has been seriously damaged. Unfortunately in England at the moment, the libel law can be used to stifle debate, even to prevent scientists from publishing their research freely, and to intimidate people instead of engaging in rational discussion. It is a matter of balance between free speech and the prevention of calumny. We have not got that balance right and therefore I support the reform of the libel law.

A link to my blogpost on libel reform by American Catholic uberblogging legend, Father Zuhlsdorf, has been the icing on the cake. The campaign for English libel reform is being read about and backed by Catholics from the Vatican to Vermont and from Lourdes to London. Take it from me, dear reader, that's important.

Catholic bloggers for Libel Reform

2010-11-11T16:25:00.000-08:00

Fiorella calls for Free Speech

Protect the Pope says Catholics and all people of goodwill must get behind libel reform

World of Nic reminds us that Catholic bloggers are open to attacks by our current ludicrous system

Simon denounces libel threats being used to stifle debate on the Catholosphere.

James Preece explains why libel reform is so important for Catholics.

If you haven't already done so, sign the petition for libel reform here.

I never realised

2010-11-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

... that I lived under the kind of sinister regime in which telling bad jokes is effectively banned and expressing your point of view about the sinfulness of this or that sexual activity will get you arrested. I mean, what, are we in Canada or something?

Catholic bloggers for Libel Reform - Fight for Free Speech

2010-11-10T09:04:00.000-08:00

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

Tribune Vardy statement in open court

2010-11-08T04:33:00.000-08:00

Claim No: HQ10DO3740

SIR PETER VARDY

Claimant

-and -

(1) TRIBUNE PUBLICATIONS 2009 LIMITED

(2) CHRIS MCLAUGHLIN

Defendants

STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT

Solicitor for the Claimant

My Lord I represent the Claimant in this action, Sir Peter Vardy, who was knighted in 2001 for his services to education. The First Defendant is the publisher of the Tribune magazine, a weekly newspaper circulated in hard copy and online via its website. The Second Defendant is the Editor of Tribune.

In 1987, Sir Peter Vardy set up the Vardy Foundation to assist in the education of young people in the most socio-economically deprived parts of the United Kingdom through sponsorship of the City Technology College initiative. The schools with which the Vardy Foundation is concerned, through its Emmanuel Schools Foundation Academies, are open to students of all religious faiths, and the Vardy Foundation works in direct liaison with the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The schools that are supported by the Vardy Foundation are subject to regular Ofsted inspections and they work in tandem with their local Education Authorities. Three of the schools with which the Vardy Foundation is concerned have been awarded excellent Ofsted and HMI Inspection Reports since their inception and the fourth was rated as “good”.

On 5 October 2009, Tribune Publications (the First Defendant) published an article entitled “Creationist Claptrap that Beggars Belief”, which was attributed to the playwright Ed Waugh and the “Tribune’s Web Editor”. The sub-heading of the article said “Playwright Ed Waugh warns that Christian fundamentalism is having an increasing influence on British state schools”.

The article claimed that “the Vardy Foundation, led by Christian Evangelical Peter Vardy, which… controls three State Schools with the fourth on the way” was imposing “pseudoscience” “again on children whose education is paid for by taxpayers’ money”.

The article also claimed that; “By virtue of donating £2million of the £22million it cost the taxpayer to build an academy, the Vardy Foundation can impose its fundamentalist beliefs on children through the science curriculum”.

The article asserted that by virtue of the funding provided by the Vardy Foundation; “children in State Schools, funded by taxpayers’ money, are being taught in biology lessons that evolution is as much a “theory” as creationism and that everything was designed by a God creator as stated literally in Genesis”.

None of these allegations is correct. The schools funded via the Emmanuel Schools Foundation are not even faith schools, let alone ones which advocate creationism. As had been reported accurately by the Guardian before publication of the article, the allegation made in it that schools funded via the Vardy Foundation teach creationism “couldn’t be more wrong”. The schools sponsored by the Vardy Foundation teach an entirely orthodox syllabus, including its science teaching. The Sir Peter Vardy has specifically requested that at each Ofsted inspection, inspectors look for creationism anywhere within the curriculum of the schools sponsored by the Vardy Foundation, and on each occasion inspectors found no evidence at all of creationist teaching.

Both the Tribune and its Editor now accept the allegations made in the article concerning Sir Peter Vardy and his Foundation are untrue, and they have apologised to him for any damage which they have caused to his efforts to improve the education of the underprivileged. They also accept that Sir Peter is not a creationist, and still less has sought to advance the teaching of creationism by means of the sponsorship of education in the UK.

They have also paid a sum by way of damages to a charity of our client’s choice. Since the entire purpose of these proceedings was to ensure that Sir Peter Vardy was to set the record straight to enable the Vardy Foundation to continue to support the education of the underprivileged, he is content upon that basis to let the matter rest.

Counsel for the Defendants

I accept on behalf of the Defendants all that has been said by the Claimant’s solicitor. The Defendants accept that the aims both of Sir Peter Vardy and the Vardy Foundation are to promote the education of the underprivileged, and that Sir Peter Vardy has not sponsored schools through his Foundation for any other reason. They have apologised for and withdrawn the allegations made in the article, and agreed not to republish them.

Solicitor for the Claimant

Accordingly my Lord, I seek leave to withdraw the record.

For the Claimant

………………………………….

SWAN TURTON

For the Defendant

………………………………….

Sir Peter Vardy v Tribune Update

2010-11-08T04:17:00.000-08:00

Right, I've just spoken to my man next to the watercooler in Tribune's office and to the charming media liaison at the Vardy Group (nothing but the best for Dolphinarium readers, eh) and can update you on Sir Peter's contretemps with Tribune.

Sir Peter isn't suing Tribune, matters were settled last week, not quite out of court; as part of the settlement, the magazine agreed to a statement being read out in the High Court repudiating the admittedly pisspoor article by sometime playwrite Ed Waugh which was the subject of Vardy's complaint. It has also undertaken to make a donation to a charity of Sir Peter's choice.

I understand that this isn't the first time Sir Peter has taken action against a publication in respect of the Creationist label which has dogged him for some time. A few years ago he took action against The Guardian which was settled out of court.

Sir Peter Vardy sues Tribune for questioning his motives in funding schools

2010-11-07T13:35:00.000-08:00

The noted businessman and multi-millionaire Sir Peter Vardy has launched a lawsuit against the editors of Tribune magazine, over what he calls a defamatory article they printed about him in October 2009.
Vardy alleges that in the article – headlined ‘Creationist Claptrap that Beggars Belief’- he is painted to be a devout creationist who sponsors state schools for the main purpose of imposing Christian fundamentalist views on impressionable pupils.
He states an example from the article in the lawsuit, which reads as follows:
“By virtue of donating £2m to the £22m it costs the taxpayer to build an academy, the Vardy Foundation can impose its fundamentalist beliefs on children through the science curriculum.”
As part of the Vardy Foundation, Sir Peter sponsors four schools in the UK. These include Bede Academy in Northumberland, King’s Academy in Middlesbrough, Emmanuel College in Gateshead and Trinity Academy in South Yorkshire.
Vardy has battled accusations that he is a creationist for years, but the Tribune Magazine article seems to be the final straw for the philanthropist. He is pursuing the publication and its editor Chris McLaughlin, for £15,000 in a defamation lawsuit.
If McLaughlin and his legal team lose the case, they will most likely have to pay the injured Sir Vardy compensation using the magazine’s professional indemnity insurance (if a policy covering defamation is in place).

I shall refrain from commenting on this until I know more about it.

Congratulations on your ordination, Father Vincent

2010-10-31T16:08:00.000-07:00

Vincent Malone was ordained priest at St Mellitus Church, Tollington Park yesterday. Unfortunately your humble blogger couldn't be there for the occasion but Vincent spent some time at my parish as a deacon - his time intersected with that of the late and sorely missed Father Edward Houghton - and he struck me as a good egg. Hence his ordination is a worthy matter of blogging record.

Father Edward was a spiritual superstar whose ministry blazed briefly but oh so brightly in the year he was with us. I'm sure that Father Vincent will be a good priest in Father Edward's mould.

This post cannot end without some acknowledgement of the challenges which face new priests like Father Vincent. The English Church is at the moment a flabby class-ridden thing overburdened by a layer of self-serving social-climbing bureaucratic nonentities which lacks focus and direction. That's the truth of the matter and there's no point in sanitising it. That isn't to say that she isn't capable of turning herself around, trimming the fat and renewing herself; obviously she is. Hope for her future rests to a significant extent with the Father Vincent Malones of this world and his generation of new and one hopes, passionately Catholic priests. Theirs is an awesome responsibility; to be true shepherds in the hour of the wolf. I'm confident that Father Vincent is up to the task.

Heretic

2010-10-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

Come and sue me if you think you're bad enough. Boom boom!

Young, gifted and black ... and stopped and searched

2010-10-07T16:55:00.000-07:00

OK, so you're lucky enough to be young, gifted and black and even luckier to be driving to Selfridges with a wad of cash in your pocket which you're planning to spend on some fancy shmattes to wear that evening because luckier still, you've been invited to Tinie Tempah's launch party.

Then the plod pull you over.

At around 7.30 earlier this evening hot young British R 'n' B star, Loick Essien (for it was he) was stopped and searched by Met police officers who found the cash - approximately £500, I'm told - asked him where he'd got it from and told him he had to explain its provenance or that they would confiscate it.

However, our man on the late night shift at the Met's press office says Essien was pulled over because his car wasn't registered, that he was carrying "significantly more" than £500 and far from being told that the cash would be confiscated was given some "words of advice" about carrying such large sums around with him.

But Essien's feisty manager, Natalie, is having none of it, telling me that when Essien called her during the incident and handed the phone to one of the police officers, she too was told that the money would be confiscated if it couldn't be explained how Essien came into its possession. She points out that the police officer she spoke to even demanded that she fax over Essien's contract with Sony.

Apparently it was only when some Sony letterheaded documentation was found in Essien's car that the police officers realised that they had indeed stopped a recording artist of some repute and should perhaps have been asking him for his autograph rather than quizzing him about his finances.

"It is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

2010-09-09T05:32:00.000-07:00

As some readers have correctly guessed, the source for that quotation is indeed Peter Tatchell. He expressed his views on "inter-generational sex" - the language is interesting - in a letter to The Guardian in June 1997.

Now I realise it's not the done thing to refer publically to Tatchell's controversial views on age of consent legislation and er, inter-generational sex. The man himself may accuse you, as he did Lisa Nolland, of "McCarthyite smears and insinuations", though let me say at this juncture that if anyone wants to flesh out the Tatchell/Outrage line on these matters, they're quite free to do so in the comments box; or one of his fanatical fans will tell you off for defaming their idol and what is more, threaten to "tell Peter what has been said about him."

Yet since Mr Tatchell, or the brave and courageous human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell, as I should properly refer to him, has ventured his own wildly distorted account of Pope Benedict XVI's record in dealing with clerical sex-abuse, since he elected to pose with his posse outside Westminster Cathedral on a day of sacred significance to Roman Catholics bearing placards on which were enscribed such legends as "Pope's 2001 order to bishops: cover up child abuse" - the technical term for which is fucking bullshit - since he has not even been able name the document to which the placards supposedly refer, still less quote from it to support his allegations when questioned in public fora, I submit that it is more than fair for his own public statements on inter-generational sex to be aired. In fact I would go further, I think it's fair to comment on them as well.

To that end I note the following: first Tatchell's Guardian letter was penned exceedingly late on in the debate over sex-abuse. By 1997 both professional and public attitudes on sex-abuse had decisively shifted away from the Freudianesque tolerance which characterised the period roughly dated between 1950 and 1970; as Philip Jenkins has shown, second-wave feminist discourse on rape and sexual coercion on the one hand and therapy culture on the other had such a radical impact on attitudes to sex abuse as to have rendered the sentiments Tatchell expressed by 1997 not so much quaint as shocking to modern sensibilities.

Next, while Tatchell's letter may have shocked people in 1997, arguably it would not have had the same eye-opening effect had it been published some 20 or 15 years earlier. As late as at least 1980 the UK's National Council of Civil Liberties was debating similar issues at its annual general meeting, in 1985 German Green Party members from North Rhine Westphalia argued for "non violent sexuality" between children and adults never to be subject to criminal prosecution, in 1977 a petition addressed to the French parliament calling for the decriminalisation of all consenting sexual relations between adults and minors under 15 years of age was signed by a cluster of all the usual public-spirited intellectuals including, naturally, Sartre and de Beauvoir. Bourgeois jaws probably didn't fly open scattering mouthfuls of croissant on rive gauche cafe floors on the reading of that particular news item in Libération, if Libération even bothered to report it at all, so mild would the petitioners' demands have seemed in those days.

Third, devotees of the Tatchell cult, a zealous bunch at the best of times, would undoubtedly rejoinder that there is a world of difference between expressing dippy views on inter-generational sex and tolerating actual instances of the same and I would agree with them. Yet just as I am happy to put Mr Tatchell's views in context - he was shaped by and remains, to my mind, an exponent of the old New Left - I don't think it's asking too much for him and and his merrie band to put the Church's record on sex-abuse in rational context either.

Fourth, most, if not all of the clerical sex abuse scandals we see reported, indeed screamed in banner headlines by the press date back to the period when freewheeling New Left attitudes to inter-generational sex were in vogue and most of them, for what it's worth, didn't involve paedophilia in the strict sense of the term.

Would reading any of this cause the No Pope protesters to rethink their attitudes to the Pope? To answer in the affirmative would be to assume that their attitudes were the product of rational enquiry in the first place, when clearly they are not. No, these grim-faced fanatics been rendered insensate by repeated exposure to brain-pulverising rubbish. They've been whipped up into a state of excitement and now they're champing at the bit. That's the intellectual crime Peter Tatchell bears responsibility for, not a crazy letter in the Guardian.

Quiz time: Who said this?

2010-09-04T10:02:00.000-07:00

ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Bonus questions: When and where was it said?

The story that cannot be contained

2010-08-15T14:55:00.000-07:00

They say that in Birmingham's Catholic churches these days pious Mass goers do the sign of the cross and then defiantly raise their fists in the Black Power sign. And they sing, oh Lord, how they sing:

Freeeee the Brum Three
So many tears in captivity

You're so blind that you cannot see
You're so deaf that you cannot hear them
You're so dumb that you cannot speak
Freee the Brum Three

Despite the best efforts of the Oratorian leadership this story will not go away. First there was a low rumbling on the blogosphere accompanied by ostensibly restrained stories in the press which fairly breathed with knowing hints. Then there was the constant drumbeat of resistance from outraged Catholics demanding to know what the hell was going on in Brum Oratory. Now Ruth Dudley Edwards, who I last saw taking on Sean Matgamna at a Workers' Liberty debate on the Easter Rising, has well and truly blown the lid off the thing. Nice one, comrade!

No wonder Jack Valero has come over all bloodied but unbowed and quoting Invictus at us on Twitter.

Irony of ironies, guess who else did so on his remote prison island all those years ago. The spirit moves in mysterious ways, does it not?

H/T Splintered Sunrise and James Preece.

Spot the difference

2010-07-01T15:20:00.000-07:00

What, bombs in ~~Brum~~ Baghdad, you're 'aving a laugh intcha, guvnor? Naaah, they aint bombs, mate, that booming noise you can 'ear is the Josemaria Escriva memorial reggae sound clash and fireworks display, innit. Oy, see this box daahn 'ere, full of bottles of the purest lweel de serpent, special offer, twenny quid the lot.

The story everyone is talking about

2010-07-01T14:44:00.000-07:00

So rumours are flying around on the internet, private lives are being held up for public consumption, there's talk of an injuction on the one hand and members of the team in open rebellion against the skipper on the other. Yes, it must be tough at Brum Oratory these days.

Memo to Felix Seldon and Ignatius Harrison: bring the boys back home.

Don't mess with God or you'll end up like this man

2010-07-01T07:39:00.000-07:00

I've said it before and will say it again: don't mess with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses. Just don't do it or you might end up like Colin Hall.

Colin Hall, the Lord Mayor of Leicester, if you please, sounds like the kind of up-himself crashing bore I'd cross the road to avoid: a suburban twit who exercises his petty local powers by banning council prayers, much to the approval of the dreary British Humanist Association.

God retaliated.

And I mean, big time.

I repeat: don't mess with Him. It's really not worth it.

This is what happened to Colin Hall when he messed with the Almighty.

Hat tip: The sublime Church Mouse.

Diane Abbott - a qualified thumbs up

2010-06-10T15:24:00.000-07:00

So Abbott's through, whereas leftwing standard-bearer, John McDonnell has withdrawn from the leadership race.

Over at Labour Uncut she had this to say about McDonnell's standing for the leadership:

"There always was a tendency to say that if women stood it split the vote. I think that there is the politics that I’m on the left, and have as good a voting record on left wing issues as John McDonnell, but there’s another issue which is about gender. It’s not so much that I stood against John, but that John stood against me."

She added:

"I think it would have been easier if he hadn’t stood. If he was committed to gender issues it would have been easier if he hadn’t. Initially, it was very difficult for either of us to gain momentum. If there’d been just one of us standing then that person would have gained momentum much quicker."

I'm a Cruddas camp follower not a McDonnellite. Nonetheless I find Diane Abbott's remarks quite outrageous. John McDonnell not only launched his leadership bid before Diane Abbott; he was also the only Labour MP with the guts to challenge Gordon Brown's coronation in 2007.

Similarly, Abbott's contention that her voting record on leftwing issues is as good as McDonnell's is technically correct but glosses over their political differences. For as her choice of secondary school for her son showed, Abbott is sufficiently intellectually flexible to make decisions seemingly at odds with her political philosophy. She is a pragmatist, in other words, whereas John McDonnell is an ideologue.

None of this is to suggest that I don't welcome La Abbott as a candidate. On the contrary, I do. It is important that an African Caribbean woman is standing for leadership of the Labour Party. Diane Abbott is a formidable politician who has scaled some dizzying political heights by means of sheer gritty determination and the fact that she is incredibly bright. She is a living riposte to all those people who have ever sneered at ethnic minorities.

But it would have been even better if John McDonnell were in it with her. As it is, the parliamentary party has been allowed to screen out an authentically left wing candidate, while paradoxically parading its own diversity and inclusiveness credentials.

I think we've heard this excuse before

2010-06-02T11:21:00.000-07:00

Marie Stopes International uses UNFPA's excuse:

MARIE STOPES, the British birth-control charity, has sparked anger from women's rights campaigners by setting up a chain of abortion clinics in China, where the country's population control policies routinely pressure women into terminating their pregnancies.

Marie Stopes International (MSI) has opened five outlets in China's eastern province of Jiangsu. Here the selective abortion of girls has led to a gender imbalance of up to 131 boys for every 100 girls.

The closeness of MSI's relationship with the Chinese government was shown earlier this month when Li Bin, its population minister, visited the MSI offices in London and an abortion clinic in Bristol.

Plans are under way to set up three more MSI abortion clinics in China. Marie Stopes argues that its influence will help to change Chinese attitudes and promote the notion of women's choice.

Dana Hovig, MSI's chief executive, said the charity's policy was helping to introduce notions of "voluntarism, choice and informed consent" into the provision of abortion in China. He added that it provided contraceptive services, sex education and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases in addition to abortions.

Hovig said Li Bin was visiting Britain to see how MSI's initiative in China could be expanded. "The minister wanted to see how you can take voluntarism and choice into account and still deal with the population pressures China faces. Marie Stopes represents the good guys," said Hovig.

Yes, that is the sound of cynical laughter you can hear.

Kate Hoey gets the point that this blogger has made time and again: you, dear taxpayer, are subsidising the Chinese government's brutal one-child policy.

Kate Hoey, the Labour MP, said: “I don’t see why British taxpayers’ money via the NHS should in any way be supporting Chinese government policies.

“It’s very sad that an organisation like Marie Stopes doesn’t reflect more on the grotesque human rights abuses that take place there.”

Quite so. But what's a mere bagatelle like human rights when there's a growth market to exploit, eh?

Marie Stopes and "choice" #2

2010-05-24T14:18:00.000-07:00

"A registered charity, Marie Stopes International also works around the world in 43 countries. Surplus funds from the UK clinics, help support vital sexual and reproductive healthcare programmes in some of the world’s poorest regions. So by using Marie Stopes International services in the UK, you are also helping improve the lives of nearly 6 million people every year."

Meanwhile in China ...

Aborted baby cries before cremation

By Wang Xiang
2010-5-14
An aborted baby declared dead by doctors in south China's Guangdong Province cried before he was due to be cremated, but died hours later as doctors refused to treat him.
A mortuary worker at Nanhai Funeral Home in Foshan City said the baby cried and scared him as he was about to throw the coffin into a furnace, Information Times reported today.
He opened the box and found the seven-month fetus moving, but apparently choking on some cotton wool in his mouth, the report said.
After the worker cleared his mouth, the baby yawned and breathed peacefully. Workers rushed him back to Guanyao Hospital which delivered the baby as medical waste earlier that day.
But doctors left him in the lobby, and confirmed after an hour that the baby died.
The vice head of the funeral house said Guanyao Hospital sent many aborted fetuses or still-born babies for cremation. This baby apparently survived an abortion at seven months, and he had videos to prove the baby was still alive before the cremation. Hospital official Liu Sanhong said its staff checked the baby for an hour and made sure it was dead. Liu did not say whether the doctors tried to save the baby or not.
The body was later sent back to the funeral house. The report said all workers were ordered not to talk about the incident.
On March 31, at least 21 fetuses and dead babies were found dumped in a river in east China's Jining City.
Eight had tabs with clinic code numbers attached to their feet. The Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University responsible for the corpses said they were "medical waste."
Two hospital staffers have been detained while the director and deputy director of the hospital's logistics department were sacked. A vice president of the hospital was suspended.

Marie Stopes and "choice" #1

2010-05-24T14:16:00.000-07:00

"We hope the new Are you late? campaign will encourage people to talk about their choices, including abortion, more openly and honestly, and empower women to reach confident, informed decisions about their sexual health."

Meanwhile, in China ...

Thousands Sterilized In China Population Crackdown

Thousands of people in one county of southern China have been sterilized in just days as part of a crackdown on violations of the country’s controversial one-child policy.
A 20-day campaign was begun on 7 April to sterilize 9,559 adults in Puning county, which with a population of 2.24 million is the most populous area of Guangdong Province. On 12 April local officials said they had already achieved about half their goal.
Doctors have been working 20 hour days to complete the massive round of surgeries. Local officials are so determined to reach their target they have been detaining relatives of those who resist the operation, potentially in violation of Chinese law.
Some 1,300 people are being held in cramped conditions around the county and forced to listen to lectures about the one-child policy while their relatives refuse to submit to the surgery.

Marie Stopes International's London meeting with China's minister of forced sterilisation

2010-05-22T17:26:00.000-07:00

Marie Stopes International's (MSI) abortion advert due to be screened this week on Channel 4 has garnered an awful lot of press attention. Completely unnoticed by the press, however, was the visit paid to MSI's plush London headquarters last week by a significant overseas dignitary. Strangely MSI declined to press release this important event. So it has been left to the Tibet Truth organisation to issue a communiqué about the matter. I publish it here without comment.

Attention of Women In London

Our subscribers are deeply shocked, and opposed to the visit to the London Offices of Marie Stopes International today by Ms Lin Bin, Minister of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission.
As your organization will be very aware women's human rights, and reproductive freedoms inside communist China, and occupied nations such as Tibet and East Turkestan, are grossly violated by China's program of forced sterilizations and forced abortions, which despite the presence for decades of multi-lateral population agencies such as IPPF, UNFPA and Marie Stopes have not been moderated and continue to inlflict the most appalling abuses upon women
The fine work that Marie Stopes International is doing around the world is not at all assisted by its presence in China, nor by its support of the Chinese population control program, which over the years it seems multi-lateral population agencies have appeared very unwilling to publicly critcise, even when aware of medical atrocities its generates.
Any individual or organization genuinely committed to a woman's right to freedom of choice and control over her own body would strongly object to Marie Stopes International welcoming of Ms. Lin Bin, as reflected in our paper http://tibettruth. files.wordpress. com/2010/ 05/icpdpaper. pdf and today's guest opinion on site http://tibettruth. com/2010/ 05/19/welcome- to-marie- stopes-madame- sterilization/
Greeting Minister Lin today is no advancement of women's reproductive rights, any more than shaking hands with the Khymer Rouge's Pol Pot would have championed the cause of freedom and rights in Cambodia. It is a disappointing occasion for any who respect the other laudable work conducted by organizations such as yours, and will not be at all welcomed by Tibetan, Chinese or Uyghur women, who continue to suffer harrowing violations as a consequence of China's population program.

Tsering Yangchen

Tibettruth

Over to you, Laurie Penny.

UNFPA on China

2010-05-22T16:49:00.000-07:00

"Totally voluntary" - UNFPA executive director, Nafis Sadik on the Chinese government's one-child policy, 1989.

"UNFPA firmly believes and so does the government of the People's Republic of China, that their program is a totally voluntary program." - Nafis Sadik, 1989

"There is no such thing, as you know, [as] a license to give birth and so on." - Nafis Sadik, 1989.

"The issue of coercion is exaggerated" - UNFPA representative in China, Stirling Scruggs, 1991.

"China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of population growth" - Nafis Sadik, 1991.

American scholar praises China's population policy, warns of challenges
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 10 (Xinhua) - American scholar Barbara Pillsbury praised China's population control policy in a speech made Thursday at the University of Southern California but also warns of the challenges China faces.
Pillsbury, who has worked for the United Nations Population Agency, said China won't have achieved so much in the country's development if it did not pursue its population control policy.
She recalled China's population policy in the 1950s and said at the first 10 years since new China was founded, there were two different opinions on whether the country will control the population, and during the first 10 to 20 years there had no population control.
Pillsbury is a cultural and medical anthropologist, specialized in the design, management and evaluation of socioeconomic development programs in developing countries, especially in Asia.
She has worked extensively in China, conducting research, training workshops, evaluations and strategic planning for Chinese governmental agencies and international organizations including the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Population Agency (UNFPA) and UNICEF.
Most recently she was team leader for the 2008 Review of the Government of China-UNFPA Country Program, which contributed to renewal of the U.S. government's contributions to UNFPA.

Dear Secretary of State ... A modest proposal for Andrew Mitchell

2010-05-22T16:48:00.000-07:00

Iain Dale has rightly taken up the shocking case of Malawian same-sex couple, Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga who have been jailed for holding an engagement ceremony with the new Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell. I'm glad he's done so. Although Dale shies away from demanding an "ethical foreign policy", not unreasonably pointing out that "we live in a world of 'realpolitik' where we have to deal with people we would rather not", he makes a good point when he says, "we don't have to give money to regimes which have intolerable moral outlooks, and use these to punish their own people."

Accordingly, I respectfully submit my own proposal to Andrew Mitchell:

Dear Secretary of State,

Why don't you defund UNFPA?

Sincerely,

Red Maria.

New name and new director for Linacre Centre.

2010-05-20T13:31:00.000-07:00

From CCN

The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics is delighted to announce the appointment of Professor David Jones, currently Professor of Bioethics at St Mary's University College, Twickenham, as its new Director. This appointment is the second step in an exciting development plan for the Centre, the first step of which was the permanent relocation of the Centre to Oxford, and developing close co-operation in academic research with Blackfriars Hall, a Permanent Private Hall of Oxford University. The next step in the plan will be an ambitious fundraising campaign to secure permanent suitable accommodation for the Centre, and an increased body of research staff. As a consequence of this move the Centre is changing its name to The Anscombe Bioethics Centre.**
Dr Helen Watt will hold the post of Senior Research Fellow when she steps down as Director. She said "We are delighted to have attracted someone of the calibre of David Jones to the Centre: his appointment will raise the Centre's international recognition to a new level. I look forward to working with David to ensure the Centre builds on its excellent reputation both academically and as a source of practical advice."
Professor Jones, who will take up his post in July, said, "I feel honoured to have been appointed as Director of the Linacre Centre, soon to be the Anscombe Bioethics Centre. It is an exciting time to take up this role: The move of the Centre to Oxford and our developing relationship with Blackfriars is a great challenge and an opportunity. Catholic bioethics must learn from the greatest thinkers of our age and must make its own voice heard at the highest level of academic debate. I aim to work with colleagues in engaging openly and eagerly with the key ethical issues of our day."
**There is already a Linacre College in Oxford which would lead to confusion, so the Centre will shortly be changing its name to the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, after Professor Elizabeth Anscombe, a distinguished Catholic philosopher whose intellectual and personal interests included an interest in bioethics. The Centre now has office space provided by Blackfriars Permanent Private Hall at Oxford, but hopes to raise funds for a building of its own to accommodate both the Centre's staff and its library, which is currently in storage.

This is excellent news. Professor David Albert Jones, who happens to be a distinguished reader of this blog, is a man of rare brilliance. He's smart, witty, a natty dresser and best of all, combative. Every thinking person should have a copy of his work, The Soul of the Embryo.

Renaming Linacre after Elizabeth Anscombe (pictured) seals the deal. Cigar-smoking Catholic convert, Anscombe, who died in 2001 was a megastar in the world of philosophy. Her opposition to Oxford University's granting an honorary award to the butcher of Hiroshima, former US president Harry Truman in 1956 also marked her out as one of, if not the premier Seamless Garmenter of all time.

So congratulations, y'all. Now let's get on with business: setting the world on fire!

Cruddas: Not Now

2010-05-17T17:04:00.000-07:00

Jon Cruddas has ruled himself out of the Labour leadership race. Disappointed? Yes, I am. We've had 16 years of alien right-wing domination, 26 if, like me, you count the crazed witch-hunting Kinnock years - the less than two years in which John Smith was at the helm simply weren't enough to stem the tide - and it would be nice, just for once, to have a Labour leader.

Instead it looks like like the Miliband brothers and AN Other are going to be fighting it out for the honour of launching Labour 2.0

Zzzzzz.

The Ascension

2010-05-16T15:30:00.000-07:00

Evan's above

2010-05-09T12:45:00.000-07:00

The war of words between Harris critics and Harris fanatics goes on unabated.

The latest blogger to take up arms in defence of Dr ~~Death~~ Evan Harris is the Staggers' Sholto Byrnes who piteously described George Pitcher's frankly expressed pleasure at Harris' electoral defeat as "extraordinarily personal and vitriolic".

Tsk, tsk, such an attack of the vapours ill-becomes a member of our glorious Fourth Estate.

But soft what light through yonder window breaks? It is the East and Byrnes is about to deliver a poignant soliloquy extolling the virtues of his hero:

"I think he has been one of the most principled MPs in parliament, sticking to his convictions and standing up for a true-liberal view of free speech - and of the idea of liberty itself."

Forgive my irreverant laughter.

I appreciate Evan Harris, really I do. He is sweet and polite and kind, all these things are true. But your humble blogger appreciates him for what he really is, a masterful politician albeit one without a seat at the moment, not the curiously bloodless saint of misty-eyed Secularist imagination.

Sholto and the Spooksters' Evan is a fearless champion of liberty, a man who boldly campaigns alongside Rowan Atkinson for unfettered free speech.

My Evan is a man who picks his libertarian battles carefully, one so committed to liberty that he declined to support the late David Taylor's attempt to guarantee free speech for Christians in the Coroners and Justice Bill debate.

Their Evan is an unremitting foe of discrimation and bigotry everywhere.

My Evan is an honorary associate of the National Secular Society, a position he comfortably shares with that well-known opponent of anti-Catholicism, Mary Honeyball and Baroness "tell the poor to have fewer children" Flather.

Their Evan is the stuff of gushing hagiography who appears in dazzling white raiment at Skeptic events, spreading the Gospel of Science and Enlightenment to faith school-educated primitives.

Mine is a chess devotee and nifty political mover, a man with a cool, calculating cast of mind and a steady, watchful gaze, yet also a man who is strangely thin-skinned - he terms mild criticisms "attacks" - and seems to surround himself with fawning devotees.

Naturally I prefer my Evan Harris. The spooksters' Evan is a boring goody-goody. Mine at least has the benefit of verisimilitude.

I hate to say I told you so

2010-05-09T09:15:00.000-07:00

Knock knock
Who's there?
Evan Harris.
Evan Harris who?
That's politics.

Electoral politics is a notoriously ruthless game. Stars of the backbenches are reduced to yesterday's men with a casually penciled x by their name. Dr ~~Death~~ Evan Harris might have retained his seat in Oxford West and Abingdon but for the want of a mere 176 votes.

Yes, yes, I know, boundary changes, a tough battle, an even tougher bunch of constituents but I mean, please. If only Evan Harris and the spooksters had spent more time stuffing envelopes with thrilling re-elect Harris literature rather than getting embroiled in idiotic flame wars with Telegraph bloggers he might still be an MP.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

2010-05-06T07:29:00.000-07:00

The following message appears on a blank page when you enter the BNP's URL into your browser:

A message from Simon Bennett due to the volume of phone calls and emails I am receiving:

This website and domain are no longer in my control. I have not sabotaged it. The domain name has been pointing to the new BNP server since last night (5th May) which is completely out of my hands. If your Emails are affected, again this is completely out of my hands and control.
If you are reading this message it is because they have set up their server incorrectly and this needs to be resolved by the new webmaster.
It is important to note that I have been working hard to negotiate a seamless switchover of the website, but for reasons unknown to me the leadership have chosen to force the domain from me, steal my work, data and systems and go it alone rather than paying for it. I will continue to work hard to try and resolve the situation quickly, professionally and amicably. This is in the hands of Nick Griffin and Jim Dowson, not me.
It should also be noted that they have decided to put a personal grudge against me before the interests of the party and its members. This was not a fight of my choosing.

Hat tip: Hope not Hate on Twitter.

BNP candidate attacks young man in street

2010-05-05T15:56:00.000-07:00

I've said it before and will say it again. Wherever the BNP goes, violence follows.

From Hope not Hate

Hours ago, BNP candidate Bob Bailey - the party's top official in London - viciously attacked a young man in the street. A camera team caught the attack on video. Watching Bailey mercilessly kick a young man in the head isn't for the faint of heart.

This man and his party could be in power as of Friday. You can help stop it happening by volunteering in Barking tomorrow.

We need people for every hour of every day - and every supporter can make a difference.

Tell us that you're coming to Barking so we can plan the day's important campaign - and we'll email you confirmation of the day's sessions.

Here are the details:

HOPE not hate HQ
50-52 New Road
Dagenham, Essex RM9 6YS

Keep the faith

2010-05-05T09:30:00.000-07:00

There were interesting comments left on my Evan Harris post a few days ago - hello Kenny McLeod and Mike Hypercube - and I will get back to you, I promise.

But first thing's first.

"So give to the poor; I’m begging you, I’m warning you, I’m commanding you, I’m ordering you."
St Augustine of Hippo 354-430

Vote Labour Tomorrow.

Vote for the Party which gave us the minimum wage, Sure Start, the Stephen Lawrence Enquiry and serious investment in health and education. It isn't perfect, of course it isn't. Recent Labour governments have also done things with which I vehemently disagree. But the Labour Party, the party of Atlee, of Bevan, the New Jerusalem and the organic link with the trade unions is the best we've got.

Death rattle and roll

2010-05-02T14:33:00.000-07:00

I yield to no one in my admiraton of Dr ~~Death~~ Evan Harris. No, seriously, he's a lovely chap with immaculate manners and there's something so adorable about the way he says, "evidence-based", y'know with real passion, as though this empiricism lark hasn't been around for centuries but is his own personal big idea. Supercute!

But I'm worried about him. Some of his online utterances have been passing strange of late. Indeed the fact that's he's taken the time to make online utterances is itself passing strange. Yes, I know there's a Lib Dem surge on and Nick Clegg is poised to get his hands on some red ministerial boxes but oughtn't Harris be out on the stump thrilling floating voters with radical talk about localism and drainpipes?

What the devil is he doing leaving rambling comments on Cristina Odone and George Pitcher's Torygraph blogs?

Take this moist-eyed moaning, for instance:

"I have met Christina on several occasions and she has always – at least to my face been polite and civil. How sad that she resorts to snide personal comments which she has publicly condemned in others. Why not just stick to the issues?"

I mean, please.

Then it's onto abortion 'n' euthanasia and this curious comment:

"I support -a s does 80% of the population and the Church of England – the right of women not to be forced to go through pregnancy and give birth against their will."

Never mind his 80% of the public assertion, which, I think, comes from this or that pro-choice group's push poll, or indeed the tendentious way he frames the issue - we Pro Lifers don't roam the streets armed with semen-filled turkey-basters looking for any woman of fertile age to impregnate - it's the way he claims the Church of England for his own position which should raise eyebrows.

This is the Church of England which in 2005 said that "the abortion law needs to be applied more strictly and the number of abortion carried out strictly reduced" and is currently led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, one Rowan Williams. That is Rowan Williams, a longstanding member of that well-known radical-feminist organisation, SPUC.

"I have never said 'God is bad, his followers mad'", he wailed plaintively, adding "You made that up again Christina!". For some reason it doesn't occur to him that Odone didn't claim that he'd said that either, nor that there's the teeniest touch of humbug in his complaint given his extraordinary suggestion that the Church of England takes the same position on abortion that he does.

Then it's all the usual B-side stuff about respecting religion but objecting to religious "privilege", as he insists on calling believers' democratic rights, before concluding with yet another moan about Odone's "shallow, personalised approach" and a bitchy "not very Christian of her I would say."

There was much the same on Pitcher's comments box where he defended his, his party and his leader's policies. I found two of his remarks rather troubling, first this one:

"Why is ... seeking to end the unjustified discrimination against Catholics in our constitution to be viewed as 'a passing bandwagon' rather than say the consistent views of a conviction politician who believes in personal autonomy and seeking to end sectarian discrimination?"

Aside from the obvious self-aggrandisment in his description of himself - is Evan Harris getting just a little bit carried away by the antics of his fan club? - his supposedly consistent opposition to anti-Catholic discrimation is at variance with his position as honorary associate of the most anti-Catholic organisation in the British Isles, that purveyor of bigotry, the National Secular Society (NSS). Recall who another honorary associate of the NSS is: Mary Honeyball MEP. Recall her wondering "should devout Catholics such as Kelly, Browne and Murphy be allowed on the government front bench in the light of their predilection to favour the Pope's word above the government's?" Recall who sprang to her defence and what he went on to say about David Kerr's membership of an entirely legal group.

Keeping that sort of company doesn't suggest that Harris is a conviction politician who opposes sectarian discrimination. Much more in character, I feel, is his parthian shot:

"By the way Mr Pitcher, was it deliberate irony of yours to note that the junior civil servant responsible 'has been moved to other duties' given the failure of the Catholic Church hierarchy in some cases to do anything about certain paedophile priests? If so, one cheer for you."

Despite the careful qualifying phrase, "in some cases" his implication is clear; it's a bitchy sectarian jibe. I think it also fails to meet the most scrupulous "evidence-based" standards, as it happens.

Dear, oh dear. I expected better of Evan Harris.

Right now I expect him to get the hell off Twitter and out campaigning as though there's a General Election a few days away. Like NOW, Evan!

Jack Chick of Kent

2010-04-30T13:24:00.000-07:00

Among the comments which caught my eye on Odone's much-discussed Evan Harris post, was one by Überblogger and Westminster Skeptics in the Pub convenor, Jack of Kent.

"Odone used to be such a good writer," he began, sounding like a teacher chastising a once promising pupil.

"What she wants to do here is make Dr Evan Harris (in fact, a good and compassionate man) seem like Drs Shipman or Mengele ('Dr Death'), even though there is nothing to substantiate the link."

Er, no. What she was doing was referring to Harris by his affectionate nickname, Dr Death, so given because of his views on abortion 'n' euthanasia.

She also seeks to prioritise the claims of religion (in fact, the catholic brand of Christianity ...

Whoah! Wait a minute. How the hell did that get in there? Where did Cristina say or suggest that religious views should be prioritised over anything?

... which it is sensible even for apologists like Odone not to mention aloud at the moment)

You what?

... above that of secularism.

That word really ought to be placed in inverted commas.

"Lets see she how she does. 'Dr Harris believes in euthanasia – and, I mean, really believes' – but nothing Odone says actually substantiates this serious Mengele-like description; so this is just poor and alarmist blogging."

I think she's referring to Harris's voting record. Ok, so you and he say physician-assisted suicide, Cristina and I say euthanasia. We could just agree to disagree on this one.

"'But as the subject turns to the ethical or religious issue of the day – faith schools, say, or teenage pregnancies…'
Again, poor writing. Ethics and religion are distinct; and just shoving a hopeful “or” in there does not mean she is able to conflate these issues."

Oh Lor', the pedantry of it all. Spare me.

'“The Lib Dems are now the most secular party in the Britain – and not in a good way. There’s something sinister about a movement that, in my view, doesn’t hold all life precious; that thinks that less than perfect lives can be dispensed with on grounds of “compassion”. Remember that creepy side of the Lib Dems next time you see Clegg bouncing with vitality.”
Again, “less than perfect lives” suggests Mengele; and again utterly no substance."

Um, no. It suggests that those, like Harris, who advocate euthanasia, oh ok, physician-assisted suicide if you must, see those in pain at the end of their lives as living such imperfect lives that they are worthy candidates for propulsion into that long good night. That is all.

"This really is all nasty; but it is actually very weak stuff.
Very disappointing."

Pots and kettles, sweetie.

But wait for it, Jack of Kent is building up to his peroration.

"And given the ethical failings and inhumane conduct of her own “movement”, I would like to suggest that Evan Harris has more decency and compassion than the entire leadership of her own chosen ethical guardians."

Ta da!

He's not a fan of the Whore of Babylon, as you will have guessed.

On his blog he conveys his hostility to the Catholic Church by daringly styling the Bishop of Rome's title with a lower-case "P".

Oooh!

Not to mention by the casual assertion that "the Roman Catholic church has long sought arrogantly to put themselves beyond the reach of the civil authorities."

Admittedly he didn't allow his prejudices to colour his opinion of Ditchkins' proposal that His Holiness should be tried, convicted and strung up: "such fantasies must yield to the fundamental liberal requirements of due process and the rule of law," he pointed out not unreasonably. Yet he also declared that, "watching the pope do the 'perp walk' - perhaps handcuffed to some surly female police officer - would be satisfying to those, like me, of a strong atheist and anti-clerical temperament."

Atheist and anti-clerical temperaments are all very well - incidentally is one born with a predisposition to them or are they traits shaped by exposure to other Atheist anti-clericalists? - but when you suggest that left-footers should be skulking in the shadows cowering with shame and slam every single bishop of the Church because a Catholic blogger had a bit of a go at your idol, your temperament has got the better of your reason.

Sweet Reason

2010-04-29T09:36:00.000-07:00

Say what you like about followers of the Dr ~~Death~~ Evan Harris cult but they can't be faulted for their zealotry as the fragrant Cristina Odone has found out to her cost.

Hostilities began last week when former Catholic Herald editrix Odone posted a mildly critical piece about Harris on her Torygraph blog:

"I’ve come across Harris a few times. The Big Questions, a BBC1 programme presented by Nicky Campbell on Sunday morning, often invites him on: his eloquence and logic make him an able debater. But as the subject turns to the ethical or religious issue of the day – faith schools, say, or teenage pregnancies – I watch him turn pop-eyed with bilious indignation. He becomes almost a caricature of the National Humanist Society spokesman: God is bad, his followers mad."

It was as though she'd contaminated the Madonna.

Horrified ~~Death~~ Harris fanatics took the opportunity to profess their devotion to the man they revere as Sweet Reason incarnate, indeed some were so impassioned that they hit the "post" button no less than three times.

Temperate, sweet-natured and reasoned comments rebuking Odone for her spite zinged hither and yon:

"I could point out that Cristina Odone was essentially sacked from The Observer. But I’m not going to. Lets look at this “article” for what it is – a total argumentum ad hominem ...You’re a joker if you think you’re in anyway a journalist," declared Mr Bond

Owly 999 said, "You are a horrible, vile, vindictive little woman who really shouldn’t be writing in any national newspaper. OK, maybe one aimed at the retarded beliefs of any religous faction."

And in keeping with their high evidence-based ethical standards, bigoted jibes and conspiracy-nuttery about Odone's religion were, of course, conspicuously absent:

David Colquhoun said: "There could hardly be a worse moment to seek to impose catholic values on the rest of society. That church, including its head, has been seem to fail to report to the police the most vile crimes. It is in deep disgrace precisely because of its lack of moral principles."

Added glennoliver: "So, in your view, how precious did the tens of thousands (and increasing weekly) guilty Catholic clergy hold the young lives they abused? Are they and their church sinister at all?"

Odone declared herself "spooked" by the furious reaction to her post.

"It’s come as a bit of a shock to discover that everything I write that is even mildly critical of the Lib Dem sacred cows, Nick Clegg and Dr Evan Harris, provokes instant, ferocious and unchecked response," she lamented.

Yes, it's very different to the sedate world of the traditional dead-tree press where the commentariat spoke from on high to their forlock-tugging readers. The brave new world of the internet allows anybody with an opinion and a a modem to bellow through a virtual foghorn. It's loud, it's brash and a profoundly democratic medium. That's its beauty.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Cristina.

Telling it how it is

2010-04-28T05:55:00.000-07:00

Why is it outrageous to call someone a bigot if that is exactly what they are?

Blog theme tune meme

2010-04-25T09:43:00.000-07:00

AVPS has tagged me in one of those blog meme thingies, asking which theme tune I'd adopt for my blog.

Tough one but I think I'll plump for LL Cool J and Mama said knock you out. Why? Because I'm partial to hip-hop and heavy-weight boxing and the swaggering braccadocio of the lyrics (Don't call it a comeback/I been here for years/Rockin my peers and puttin suckas in fear/Makin the tears rain down like a MON-soon/Listen to the bass go BOOM) mirrors this blog's up-front style, or so I like to think, anyway. And one other reason: laydeez lurve cool James, of course.

So without further ado, here it is:

I gather that one is supposed to tag others. So I tag Voltaire's Priest, Jim Denham, Crispian Jago and ... On the Side of the Angels (OTSOTA), who is, I think, the perfect counterpoint to Jimbo and Jago.

Quick intro for OTSOTA: a former seminarian, he sets the standard for us left-footers when it comes to doctrinal orthodoxy, a man who tells it like he sees it, he is the scourge of decents everywhere, hold tight, shout out and big up OTSOTA.

Secularist Stormtroopers

2010-04-24T15:52:00.000-07:00

Over on CiF, Jack Valero has written about his experience of appearing on the Beeb's Big Questions defending the Pope's record of tackling sex-abuse. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the programme, it's one of those Sunday morning hangover shows. Host Nicky Campbell throws a piece of controversy to his audience, allows some poor sod a few seconds worth of comment on whatever the issue is, then stands back and watches while the assembled company stage a fit. I believe this is called a "studio discussion".

Anyway, Jack said that after the show,

"two representatives of the Protest the Pope Coalition told me menacingly I had 'no right' to defend Benedict XVI's record on abuse."

In fairness, since I wasn't there I've got no idea how the er, exchange of views took place, or whether the anti-Catholic duo were as menacing as Jack says they were. They may just have been a touch intemperate or merely animated. But if some loudmothed pipsqueak with more front than sense were to tell me that I had no right, forsooth, to express my opinion, I'd probably unleash a stream of furious invective at them. With the Anglo-Saxonisms discreetly removed, my oration would go something like this: "aaah shuddup and go and indulge yer stormtrooper fantasies somewhere else but don't even think about policing my public discourse, cos it aint that kind of party, oh kay?"

But that's me.

At least Jack got some column inches out of it, I suppose.

Exclusive transcript of the Pope's trial for crimes against humanity

2010-04-23T18:32:00.000-07:00

Here

Friday 23 April CWU Call Centre Workers' Love Music Hate Racism Gig

2010-04-19T17:15:00.000-07:00

A host of top cutting-edge music acts, including NME Shockwaves nominees, They’re all Projects, are joining forces to fight racism and fascism at a Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) gig organised by call–centre workers from the Communication Workers Union (CWU) at the Old Blue Last in Shoreditch on Friday 23th April.
Mark Kavanagh vocalist and guitarist for They’re all Projects said, “Fighting racism and fascism has never been more important. In the General Election the BNP could gain ground unless we do everything we can to mobilise people against them. Friday night will not just be a celebration but an opportunity to gather those forces together.”
The music at the gig will be as diverse as the city it is being performed in, from melodic indie through mellow swing to the hottest ragga. Other acts performing at the event include Mr Ghost’s Hot Steppers and Because We Can. Mr, Ghost’s Hot Steppers are an eclectic seven piece. Their sound is a fusion of old-time swing beats and skiffle and they dress in a retro style to match their music.
CWU Pell and Bales vice chair and gig organiser, Pat Carmody commented, “We’ve got a cracking line up of acts for the gig this Friday. As trade unionists we know only too well that our rights are under threat when Nazis are allowed to march and spread their racist filth.
“As well as leafleting in Barking and joining the protests against the racist EDL, we can start to involve a layer of new young workers against the BNP and the EDL. We can use our trade unions to sponsor and organize events that put young anti-racists at the heart of the fight against the BNP and also recruit these young workers to our unions.”
LMHR uses the energy of the British music scene to celebrate diversity and involve people in anti-racist and anti-fascist activity as well as to urge people to vote against fascist candidates in elections.
The CWU Capital branch Call Centre Workers’ LMHR gig takes place at the Old Blue Last, 39 Great Eastern Street, London EC2A 3ES. Doors open at 8pm.

The Holocaust, paedophile rings and the recession: Pope's "crimes against humanity" include everything AND the kitchen sink

2010-04-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

News of Ditchkins latest publicity stunt here.

My question is this:

Isn't it about time that Christopher Hitchens, Johann Hari, Geoffrey Robertson et al were charged with crimes against reason?

Like a thief in the night

2010-04-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

This time death clipped the tops of trees and fell to the ground, taking 96 people with her. They included President Kaczynski and his wife, Maria, a host of political and cultural figures and Rev Canon Bronislaw Gostomski, parish priest of London's main Polish Church, St Andrzej Boboli. Those on board had been on their way to take part in commemerative services for the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre.

That such a terrible thing happened is a tragedy. Politics are of no moment at times like this. Along with my fellow Poles, I am in a state of shock.

Corin Redgrave 1939-2010

2010-04-06T11:40:00.000-07:00

I was sorry to read about the death of Corin Redgrave today. The obituaries will note that he was the scion of an important thespian family and that along with his sister Vanessa he was a leading member of the Workers' Revolutionary Party. I will remember him as a valiant defender of the Roma and Traveller community and thank God for what he did to fight oppression and prejudice.

Requiescat in Pace.

O death where is thy sting? O grave where is thy victory?

2010-04-04T14:30:00.000-07:00

Paul was asking rhetorically, of course for by his resurrection, Jesus Christ effectively abolished death. The resurrection rendered graves akin to wombs, staging posts, not ultimate destinations. The scandal of the crucifixion was transformed into the sheer bubbling excitement of Easter Day.

Hence the confidence with which Christians have been able to endure persecution whether it took place under Diocletian in the Third Century or Stalin in the 20th: the promise of eternal life.

This is what it's all about.

Christ is risen! Indeed he is risen!
Chrystus zmartwychwstał! Prawdziwie zmartwychwstał!
Քրիստոս յարեաւ ի մեռելոց՜ Օրհնեալ է Յարութիւնն Քրիստոսի՜
Krestos a uprisin! Seen, him a uprisin fe tru!
Hristos a înviat! Adevărat a înviat!
Atgyfododd Crist! Yn wir atgyfododd!
Χριστός ἀνέστη! Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη!
Ua ala hou ´o kristo! Ua ala ´i ´o no ´oia!
Christ daaztsáádéé' náádiidzáá! T'áá aaníí, daaztsáádéé' náádiidzáá!
Cristo causarimpunña! Ciertopuni causarimpunña!
Kristu qam mill-mewt! Huwa qam tassew!
Kristos Tenestwal! Bergit Tenestwal!
ქრისტე აღსდგა! ჭეშმარიტად აღსდგა!

A visionary life

2010-03-31T19:51:00.000-07:00

I've just heard that legendary radical priest, Father Paul D Auberon SJ has died.

His loss will be keenly felt by many people in Paulsberg diocese in South Africa, or Azania as he insisted on calling it, though perhaps not so acutely by his bishop, Scott Bellsonit with whom he had had numerous clashes in recent years, chiefly over Auberon's insistence on celebrating Mass in white tie and tails and reshaping the liturgy of the Eucharist to include a tap-dance. In place of the traditional concluding rite, he would invite the congregation to join him in shouting "Amandla!" and punching their fists in the air. His admirers loved his "freestyle Masses", his critics called him a "liturgical vandal".

He will be remembered for his many kind gestures; his offer of administrative assistance to the South African Bishops' Conference was typical of his thoughtfulness, though his enemies didn't miss the opportunity to blame him for the disappearance of an office filing cabinet, which was said to contain documents destined for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome.

Father Paul was a champion of numerous progressive causes and together with his great friend, Sister Jessica Rabbitte he worked tirelessly to organise his fellow clergy into a trade union. His attempts to affiliate the nascent union with the main South African trade union umbrella organisation were derailed, however, when it emerged that other members included the national chapter of the International Union of Sex Workers. Nonetheless his efforts won him new admirers including in the English diocese of Portsmouth.

At the end of his life he was working on a multi-volume work of political theory, the working title of which was Making it happen: towards a government of workers, peasants and clerics.

He will be sorely missed.

Griff nach der Weltmach, the sequel by Sinead O'Connor, published by Loonybins Press

2010-03-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

OK, so this is where we're at: I've now caught out FOUR (4) people talking the most egregious crap about a document - and how many times do I have to say this? - EASILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION?

Christopher Hitchens, Johann Hari, Peter Tatchell and now Sinead O'Connor on Newsnight last night and what the hell were the producers thinking of putting her on national television? O'Connor is, how can I put this politely? A complete fruitloop/delusional/badly out of her depth, choose whichever you fancy. Last night she gave a bizarre rambling performance, jabbing a pen in the camera's direction and lolling around on her seat.

For crying out loud. The woman thinks she shares in the apostolic succession.

And Newsnight calls her on to talk about a Vatican document. They may as well have asked David Icke.

The lesson to take away from all this: you can't rely on secondary sources. The authors might be and in this case are lying their heads off.

Look I'll make it easy for you.

Here it is. Read it yourselves.

----

Funny moment of the programme (for me). Gavin Esler turned to my old mucker, Austen Ivereigh (for it was he) and asked if he knew about the Ryan Report.

Yes, he did indeed.

How do I know?

Because I read it first - cover to bleeding cover, all of it, not just the executive summary - and identified the highlights for him.

---

Another darkly humourous moment: Sinead O'Connor, or Mother Bernadette Mary as she is also known, struggling with a peice of text and trying to argue that it was the order from the centre for a cover up. Look, I think she's a sweet, well-intentioned if mixed-up woman. Honestly I do. But Fritz Fischer II she aint.

Word of advice to Sinead: don't give up the day job.

One other thing: if you think Newnsight is out-of-order in allowing a poor unstable woman to say crazy things about Crimen sollicitationis and mislead the public on national television, here's a link to its blog. Leave a comment. Tell them what you think.

If you didn't see the programme, watch it on iplayer here. The Catholic Church sex-abuse segment with Sinead O'Connor and Austen Ivereigh is around 35 minutes in.

Paedophiles are human too

2010-03-30T18:02:00.000-07:00

"Press coverage and popular myth invite us to see paedophiles as cold, clever Machiavellian plotters. Sometimes this is true ... But far more often, they are sad, pitiful losers, the furthest of outcasts from our society.
Our hysterical climate about paedophilia had actually made them more likely to offend ...Most of the paedophiles I met had given credible testimony of sexual abuse. We do not like to admit this, because it muddies our moral indignation. Could the monster Gary Glitter once have been one of the innocent abused children we so want to protect? Can there be mitigating factors that make paedophiles human?
We cannot hope for a cure – that is not realistic, and paedophiles can never be released from the hell of being attracted to people who are incapable of reciprocating. However, they can undergo counselling that reduces their chances of reoffending substantially.
The best we can hope for, then, is to help paedophiles to control their urges and to desist from harming children, and to imprison indefinitely the small minority – such as Sidney Cooke – who do not want to stop.
Instead of driving them underground as we do at present, where their only source of friendship and comfort is to get involved with on-line paedophile rings, we need to draw them out into an environment where they can be supported in their efforts not to offend. It is not perfect – but it is far better than the current situation, where under the guise of caring about children, we are making it far more likely that child molesters will strike."

And who wrote this disgusting apologia for sex-abusers, tastelessly suggesting that people guilty of despicable and evil crimes should be be given therapy not punishment and understanding not condemnation? Who indeed?

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there #3 Mary Kenny on how times and attitudes have changed

2010-03-30T08:11:00.000-07:00

"I remember a point in the later 1970s when there was a pro-paedophile 'liberation' lobby. It was called the Paedophile Information Exchange and it argued publicly for the lifting of the prohibitions (or 'prejudices') against paedophiles. Mary Whitehouse, that doughty campaigner against pornography, took up the cudgels against the PIE - as is described in her autobiography, A Most Dangerous Woman - and was laughed at by liberals for her 'reactionary' attitudes.

In 1978, I was living in Bloomsbury in central London when the PIE held a rally in one of the local meeting halls once so beloved of Bertrand Russell and the Bloomsbury Group. Members of the PIE had affiliated themselves to the National Council for Civil Liberties and some in the NCCL supported their cause. To the surprise of many, however, this particular meeting was strormed by a group of working-class grannies who denounced the idea of paedophile relations as 'wicked' and 'evil'. There was a fierce hullabaloo, and the PIE withdrew.

Liberals were appalled at the fracas, but the battling grannies gradually gained public support. (And later, militant feminists began to support Mrs Whitehouse on both pornography and paedophilia.) Valerie Riches, founder of The Responsible Society, also campaigned against the PIE, and was one of the strongest voices against that particular 'liberation' movement, which was within an ace of being accepted. "

From Mary Kenny's column in the Catholic Herald via David Lindsay.

Mary Kenny is a very fine writer. Her 1997 book, Goodbye to Catholic Ireland was a superb work, gracefully written and crammed with fascinating detail. I have a well-thumbed copy on my bookshelf and thirteen years after its publication it's a book I still regularly consult. Mary - in that wonderful book, she expressed irritation at the habit of referring to women by their surnames, insisting that the name Mary is a very good one, which indeed it is - is, I think, like me, a fan of that high priestess of Gynocracy, the Divine Camille.

Breaking news - Government to ban smacking for anyone working with children outside the family

2010-03-30T04:38:00.000-07:00

From the Department for Children, Schools and Families

Press Notice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue Date: 30/03/2010

Government to ban smacking for anyone working with children outside the family

The Government has today announced its intention to ban physical punishment of children in any form of tuition or care outside of the family following recommendations from the Chief Adviser on Child Safety, Sir Roger Singleton.

Current legislation means that teachers in schools are banned from using any form of physical punishment, but those who tutor outside of school, including in part-time educational and learning settings and evening and weekend faith schools, are not covered by the ban. But following Sir Roger’s report Physical punishment: improving consistency and protection, the Government announced today that physical punishment of children will be banned in all forms of tuition, care and supervision outside of the family.

Ministers responded to concerns raised late in 2009 about the use of physical punishment in supplementary and part-time faith schools. In January 2010, the Children’s Secretary asked SirRoger Singleton to investigate urgently whether Government action was needed on the issue.

Sir Roger Singleton collected the views of parents, children, religious leaders and children’s charities over two months. In his report, he makes three recommendations to the Government which have today been accepted in full:

The current ban on physical punishment in schools and other children's settings should be extended to include any form of advice, guidance, teaching, training, instruction, worship, treatment or therapy and to any form of care or supervision which is carried out other than by a parent or member of the child's own family or household.

The Government should continue to promote positive parenting strategies and effective behaviour management techniques directed towards eliminating the use of smacking. Parents who disapprove of smacking should make this clear to others who care for their children.

The development of appropriate safeguarding policies in informal education and learning organisations should continue to be promoted. Legal changes which flow from adoption of these recommendations will need to be communicated effectively.

Responding to the report, Children’s Secretary Ed Balls said:

“Sir Roger’s report makes it absolutely clear that a child should not be smacked by anyone outside their family. I believe this is a sensible and proportionate approach.

“The Government does not condone smacking, nor do we want to criminalise parents who choose to discipline their children with a mild smack. We know that the majority of parents agree with this view.

“I am glad that Sir Roger ’s recommendations back the Government’s drive to promote positive parenting techniques, giving mums and dads better alternatives to smacking. I am thankful to SirRoger for his extensive work with charities and parenting groups and his careful consideration of this sensitive and complex issue.”

The Government’s Chief Adviser on Child Safety, Sir Roger Singleton said,“

While preparing for this report it was clear that there are a wide range of views on this area. Banning physical punishment outside of the family home sends a straight forward message that it is entirely unacceptable in any form of care, education or leisure.

“There is some excellent ongoing work promoting positive parenting techniques. It is imperative that this work continues to give all parents the ability to support a child’s development without the recourse to physical punishment.”

In 2009, the Government worked with a range of charities and voluntary organisations to produce a guide entitled ‘Being a Parent in the Real World’ which aims to help parents avoid smacking as a form of discipline.

Sir Roger Singleton highlights that this guide and others like it should be further promoted to ensure more parents have alternative behaviour management techniques for disciplining their children.

Sir Roger Singleton also recommended that the Government should further promote the importance of child protection and safeguarding policies and practices for more informal educational and learning organisations.

Notes to editors:

The report and response can be found: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/safeguardingandsocialcare/safeguardingchildren/safeguarding/

On 28th January, the Secretary of State asked Sir Roger Singleton for advice on the use of physical punishment in part-time educational and other learning settings. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2010_0025

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there #2

2010-03-29T19:25:00.000-07:00

And another example showing just how different attitudes were to child sex-abuse a few decades ago.

From the wikipedia entry on Danny Cohn-Bendit

"In the 1980s the Greens experimented with various policies which would decriminalise sex with children. At its national conference in Lüdenscheid (March 1985) the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia called for "nonviolent sexuality" between children and adults never to be subject to criminal prosecution. In 1987 the policy was "When young people have the desire for older peers outside the family, prevented either because their homosexuality is not accepted by their parents, or because they have paedophile inclinations, be it for other reasons, they must be given the opportunity to do so."

The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there #1

2010-03-29T19:13:00.000-07:00

Another example demonstrating how attitudes to child sex-abuse have changed radically in recent decades. From a 2001 story in The Observer.

Sixties hero revealed as kindergarten sex author

A respected Green MEP and leading figure of the Sixties protest movement has admitted to The Observer that he wrote an article claiming he had sexual contact with very young children. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, MEP for the French Greens, wrote about how flirtatious encounters in the early Seventies with children in his care as young as five had taken on 'erotic characteristics' and soon developed into more intimate contact from which he did not walk away.
When confronted last week with the article, which appeared in the August 1976 edition of the racy, now defunct cultural-political magazine das da, Cohn-Bendit said what he had written was 'unacceptable and unbearable'. He claimed his descriptions of sexual activity with the children were based on fantasy. No disclaimer to this effect appears in the article.
The article was a spin-off from a best-selling book, The Big Madness, that Cohn-Bendit wrote in 1975 about child education. The book drew on his two-year experience working in a Frankfurt kindergarten with children aged from two to five. In the article, he wrote: 'My constant flirt with all the children soon took on erotic characteristics. I could really feel how from the age of five the small girls had already learnt to make passes at me. It's hardly believable. Most of the time I was fairly defenceless.'
Later he added: 'It has happened to me several times that a few children opened the flies of my trousers and started to stroke me. I reacted differently each time according to the circumstances, but their desire confronted me with problems. I asked them: "Why don't you play with each other, why have you chosen me and not other children?" But when they insisted on it, I then stroked them. For that reason I was accused of perverted behaviour.'
Speaking by phone from his Frankfurt home, where he lives with his wife and daughter, Cohn-Bendit said on Friday that the damning paragraphs had been written as 'verbal provocation'. 'It was meant to illustrate the difficulty of the educator in bringing up children: how does one accept that children have a sexuality, and also to recognise the resistance against which educators have to work. It was written in an autobiographical way and wasn't scientific - it was a literary exaggeration.'
But he added: 'I admit that what I wrote is unacceptable nowadays. When I look at those sentences today, I say to myself, "Hey Danni, that's impossible!" It's quite legitimate that personalities should be forced to confront their pasts.'

Palm Sunday 2010: Smearing the Pope outside Westminster Cathedral

2010-03-29T19:03:00.000-07:00

(Picture: Chris Houston of Outrage)

Read the slogans on the placards. Pay particular attention to the legend on the placard held by Peter Tatchell in the centre of the picture. If it refers to Crimen sollicitationis, which I think it does, then it is deeply, patently, wholly untrue. And unless the No Pope Coalition can produce evidence substantiating the charge on the placard, an untruth is what it remains.

Let's be frank. This has nothing to do with a state visit, or with taxpayers' money, nor does it really have anything to do with sex-abuse either.

"[T]he disproportionate reaction to the clergy abuse issue, the suggestions of pervasive criminality, cannot be understood except as a reflection of accumulated political grievances over other issues, often involving sexuality and gender" - Philip Jenkins 2003.

Easter 2002: Hysteria in Boston

2010-03-29T18:21:00.000-07:00

"Long-standing media hostility to the Catholic Church was expressed in singularly frank terms in 2002, during what was commonly (and misleadingly) called the nation's 'pedophile priest' crisis. Even reputable news outlets presented a pictuire of a Catholic priesthood heavily infiltrated by perverts and child molesters ... This awful picture gave the opportunity for the widespread public expression of grotesquely anti-Catholic and anti-clerical sentiments and the revival of every ancient stereotype - even the sale of indulgences.

...

"Undeniably some Catholic authorities had responded poorly to abuse problems in bygone years, sometimes callously or irresponsibly, and on occasion worse than that. Yet the disproportionate reaction to the clergy abuse issue, the suggestions of pervasive criminality, cannot be understood except as a reflection of accumulated political grievances over other issues, often involving sexuality and gender. Every interest group with an axe to grind now used the 'pedophile crisis' as the grounds for unrestrained frontal attacks on the clergy , but also on fundamental aspects of Catholic belief. To appreciate the degree of hostility that now became evidence, we can cite the placards carried by protesters outside Boston's Holy Cross Cathedral at Easter 2002. One banner proclaimed 'Let us prey'; another warned 'Hold on to your children'; another labeled Law's Cathedral a 'house of rape' ...
In modern American history, no mainstream denomination has ever been treated so consistently, so publicly, with such venom."

The New Anti-Catholicism: The last acceptable prejudice, Philip Jenkins 2003.

"Willie Horton, or will he not get elected?" Smears, lies and the No Pope protest

2010-03-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

Remember this?

Hate campaigns never go out of fashion.

Yesterday around 30 people parked themselves outside Westminster Cathedral to protest against the Pope and Roman Catholicism. They brandished placards depicting a priest putting his hands on a child's shoulders in a paternal gesture with the slogan, "Be very afraid" underneath. Peter Tatchell was one of those who carried a placard reading, "Pope's 2001 order to bishops: cover up child abuse".

There's no other way of putting this but that slogan was an outright lie. A publically-expressed, hatred-formenting lie.

It's a deeply sad thing to see, not the brazen lie about the Pope and a document easily found in English translation on the internet but the sight of a man wrecking his own hard-won reputation for the sake of, what, precisely? Nothing of such importance that it justifies the falsehood on the placard.

Now Michael Sean Winters takes on the New York Times

2010-03-28T13:15:00.000-07:00

The fisking of news reports and columns about the sex abuse stories and the Church is now fast and furious as Catholics lose patience with the media witchhunt against the Church.

Michael Sean Winters is the latest to take aim, this time at the New York Times and its reportage of the Milwaukee scandal.

The New York Times’ article, by the usually reliable Laurie Goodstein, was not only unsupported by the documentation the paper cited, it seemed unrelated. From the documents the Times provided it seems abundantly clear that there was a monster priest, Father Murphy, in Milwaukee who abused dozens and dozens of deaf children, and that when this came to light in 1974, he was retired from ministry. Twenty years later, in 1996, a different charge was made against the priest, that he had granted absolution for sexual sins in which he was complicit. This was referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which was headed at the time by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. To be clear – and this is important because the Times’ article seems to elide the charges – Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF had no jurisdiction over abuse claims in 1996. Charges of sexual abuse only became the CDF’s responsibility in 2001. To suggest that Cardinal Raztinger was not taking the charge of sexual abuse seriously is not just interpretatively wrong in this case but factually wrong: The charge of sexual abuse was not in front of him.

As Winters' puts it, "The Holy Father does not need the support of a lowly blogger, but he and the Church he leads deserve fair treatment by journalists. Yesterday, neither the Pope nor the Church got a fair treatment in the Times."

Read it all here.

False media, we don't need it do we?

2010-03-27T18:42:00.000-07:00

This report in today's Obs really is winging it.

'Pope Benedict XVI is facing growing pressure over his handling of paedophile priests as new cover-ups come to light in Italy, the country with the greatest concentration of Roman Catholic clerics.
After the latest allegations – that Benedict took no action in the US when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's enforcer – the church is now "terrified" as more victims stand up to be counted in Italy, according to Roberto Mirabile, head of La Caramella Buona, an Italian anti-abuse group. "With the scandals erupting abroad, we will see a huge growth in victims' groups in Italy in coming weeks," said Mirabile yesterday. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict handled abuse cases at the Vatican for 24 years before he became pope in 2005.
"We are likely to discover that the Vatican worked even harder in Italy with bishops than elsewhere to hide cases, simply because the contact was closer and the church is so powerful in Italy," Mirabile added.
Sergio Cavaliere, an Italian lawyer who has documented 130 cases of clerical paedophilia, also believes that the Vatican's backyard could follow Ireland, the United States and Germany in producing a wave of abuse revelations. "The cases I have found are just the tip of the iceberg given the reluctance of many victims to come forward until now," said Cavaliere. "And in no single case did the local bishop alert police to the suspected abuse."'

And so on and so forth. Lots of opinionated quotations, the usual forecasts that cases so far represent the "tip of the iceberg" and absolutely nothing in the way of hard news.

Over at the Sunset Times, India Knight jumps on the bandwagon - I'm surprised there's any room left at this stage - and holds forth with some fatuous reasons that she is no longer "in" the Church. The fact that she ever was ever in it is news to me.

Somehow, I think we'll survive her departure.

Also in the Sunday Times, there's a report that the Vienna Boys Choir has also been caught up in the "wave" of sex-abuse cases sweeping Austria and Germany, filed by ... Roger Boyes. I hope, dear reader, that you will excuse me this moment of levity.

Television, the drug of the nation

2010-03-27T17:47:00.000-07:00

The last two weeks have seen some of the worst reporting of the Catholic Church that I can remember. Journalists - or do they blame their subs and editors? - have written extraordinary rubbish about a document easily obtainable in English translation on the internet, columnists have hyperventilated irrationally about an institution they hate for reasons they no longer remember and people who would have been rightly outraged by the notorious Willie Horton political broadcasts in the 80s raise no objection to accusations being treated as proven facts. So much for basic liberal principles like the presumption of innocence.

Sometimes it's worth getting the mass-media in perspective.

Here are the Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy with the classic, Television the drug of the Nation.

Television, the drug of the Nation
Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation
T.V., is it the reflector or the director?
Does it imitate us
or do we imitate it?

Johann Hari's rude and bigoted reply to a reader who corrected his factual inaccuracies

2010-03-27T15:51:00.000-07:00

Naturally at this time of mass media hysteria over the Catholic Church sex-abuse stories, Christopher Hitchens is far from the only writer to have used his column inches to indulge in a prolonged bout of fantasy and rhetorical overkill on the subject. In last week's Independent, Johann Hari did much the same.

One reader had the effrontery to contact Hari asking him politely whether he'd withdraw some of the wilder statements in his column. The reader included quotations from Crimen sollicitationis, which Hari in his column quite madly claimed "order[ed] bishops to swear the victims to secrecy and move the offending priest on to another parish".

The reader also pointed out inter alia that "there is absolutely no proscription in any document on reporting any case of abuse to the civic authorities by anyone?" and argued not unreasonably that, "de delictis gravioribus is a direct action by the then Cardinal Ratzinger TO PREVENT diocesan cover-ups of sexual abuse cases - rather every detail of said crimes were to be reported to Rome - with consequent MANDATORY reporting to the civic authorities of said offences where it is the law; and recommended reporting where it is not?"

Hari's reply was spat out:

"What rubbish. "No proscriptions" on reporting the facts? It says they should be dealt with in 'the utmost secrecy'!
Shame on you for supporting this filth.
I get over 200 emails a day. I'm not really inclined to spend my time engaging with paedophile-defenders like - as you put it - "His Holiness."
I hope one day you have an awareness of the despicable and evil crime you are defending, and apologize to the victims. You can reply to this but I won't read it. I have better things to do."

Let me suggest that the better things Hari should spend his time on include fact-checking his copy, double-sourcing anything he writes about canon law, reflecting on the crucial role stereotypes play in perpetuating bigoted attitudes to minority groups and considering the following statement: taking issue with your copy, Hari, is not the same as defending child-abuse.

Then he should go and hang his head in shame.

"lurid prose is hardly a substitute for sound research" - another writer pulverises Christopher Hitchens

2010-03-26T14:18:00.000-07:00

"Christopher Hitchens' venomous attack on Pope Benedict XVI1 is a revelation that deserves wider attention. Were it not for its appearance in the National Post, it would be difficult to believe that a reputable newspaper would publish such absurdity."

In a brilliant piece of writing, Sean Murphy takes Christopher Hitchens' hopelessly bad article, "the great Catholic cover up" brick by painstaking brick here.

I did something similar here a few days ago.

Hat tip: Londiniensis.

Now their prejudices really are showing

2010-03-25T19:44:00.000-07:00

Members of the [No Pope] campaign agree the following view:

That the Pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country.
However, as well as a religious leader, the Pope is a head of state and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
• opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of AIDS

...

Remind you of anyone?

Like Baroness Shreela "tell the poor to have fewer children" Flather, for example.

Baroness Flather is a "distinguished" supporter of The British Humanist Association and an honorary associate of the National Secular Society both of which are ... members of the No Pope Coalition.

Once again, for emphasis

2010-03-25T18:26:00.000-07:00

A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a "smoking gun" providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome.

Civil attorneys handling lawsuits against the Catholic church have pointed to the document as evidence of obstruction of justice.
For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.
The 39-page document, titled in Latin Crimen Sollicitationis, was issued in March 1962 by the Holy Office (today the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). It established a procedure for canonical cases in which priests were accused of abusing the confessional to sexually proposition penitents. Four concluding paragraphs extend the procedure to the crimen pessimum, or "worst crime," meaning homosexual acts contrary to a priest's celibate commitment. The document was not designed to address sexual abuse of minors, but would include many such violations.
Paragraph 11 of the document stipulates that such cases are covered by the "secret of the Holy Office," today known as pontifical secrecy, the strictest form of secrecy in church law. Excommunication is prescribed for anyone who violates this secrecy.
The document was itself to be kept secret. Instructions on Page One direct that it be stored in the secret archives of each diocese, and that it not be published or commented upon. Msgr. Thomas Green, canon law expert at The Catholic University of America, told NCR Aug. 4 that unlike most church legislation, Crimen Sollicitationis was never published in the official Vatican bulletin Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
The document recently came to light because it was referenced in a footnote to a May 18, 2002, letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's doctrinal congregation, to the bishops of the world regarding new procedures for sex abuse cases.
Boston attorney Carmen L. Durso sent a copy of the document July 28 to U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, arguing that it may prove the Catholic church has been obstructing justice.
"This document may provide the link in the thinking of all of those who hid the truth for so many years," Durso said, as quoted by the July 29 Worcester Telegram and Gazette. "The constant admonitions that information regarding accusations against priests are to be deemed 'a secret of the Holy Office' may explain, but most certainly do not justify, their actions," Durso told the federal attorney.
Oblate Fr. Francis Morrisey of St. Paul University in Ottawa, Canada, told NCR Aug. 4 that he doubts the document had such an effect, because few bishops knew Crimen Sollicitationis even existed.
"The document was so secret that it couldn't even be mentioned," Morrisey said. "I'm inclined to believe that most bishops were unaware of its existence and contents until a situation arose, and so it never crossed their mind to take cover under this text."
Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.
"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."
Green said the document was issued by the Holy Office because it had responsibility for dealing with "serious violations of the sacrament of penance."
Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.
Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread "mentality" that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities.
Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures.
That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to "cover up" sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so. This penalty is stipulated, the document says, "lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls."
Canon lawyers also note that pontifical secrecy is hardly reserved to sexual abuse. Under a Feb. 4, 1974, instruction Secreta Continere, pontifical secrecy covers: 1) Documents for which pontifical secrecy is expressly indicated; 2) Affairs dealt with by the Secretariat of State under pontifical secrecy; 3) Doctrinal denunciations and publications of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as its investigations; 4) Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith or against morals, and crimes against the sacrament of penance, as well as the procedures leading to these denunciations; 5) Acts by Vatican representatives relative to matters covered by the pontifical secret; 6) Creation of cardinals; 7) Nomination of bishops, apostolic administrators and other ordinaries with episcopal power, and the procedures related to these appointments; 8) Nomination of superiors and other major officials of the Roman curia; 9) Codes and coded correspondence; 10) Affairs and practices of the pope, of the chief cardinal or archbishop of a dicastery and of pontifical representatives.

John Allen, 2003.

Yes, and the point is?

2010-03-25T18:09:00.000-07:00

More crap on Crimen Sollicationis here.

Question for Ruth Gledhill, to whom this blog has been more than fair:

At what point do you think reportage ends and the promotion of anti-Catholic campaigns and events begins?

Take your time.

You wouldn't know the numbers were so low from the coverage

2010-03-25T17:52:00.000-07:00

... In the past 40 years, less than half of 1 per cent of Catholic priests in England and Wales (0.4 per cent) have faced allegations of child abuse. Fewer have been found guilty ...

Vincent Nichols tries to calm the baying mob.

Meanwhile on the totally impartial BBC ...

2010-03-25T17:31:00.000-07:00

Pope accused of failing to act on sex abuse case

Victim Arthur Budzinski says Vatican members knew about the scandal
Pope Benedict XVI failed to act over complaints during the 1990s about a priest in the US who is thought to have abused some 200 deaf boys, victims say.
As head of the Vatican office dealing with sex abuses, the then Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly did not respond to letters from an archbishop on the case.
A Church trial of the priest was halted after he wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pleading ill health.
The Vatican newspaper said the claims were an "ignoble" smear attempt.
The Holy See has been plagued in recent months by abuse cover-up claims in Europe, echoing a similar scandal that hit the Church in the US eight years ago.
For more than 20 years before he was made pontiff, Cardinal Ratzinger led the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - the Vatican office with responsibility, among other issues, for response to child abuse cases.
An archbishop wrote letters in 1996 to the Vatican watchdog led by Cardinal Ratzinger calling for disciplinary proceedings against Fr Lawrence Murphy, according to Church and Vatican documents.
Fr Murphy was a popular priest who is believed to have molested some 200 boys at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974.
A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop.
The accused priest said in the letter that he was ill and wanted to live out the remainder of his time in the "dignity of my priesthood".
Victims say Fr Murphy - who died in 1998 - assaulted boys while hearing their confessions, in his office, his car, at his mother's house and in their dormitory beds.
He was quietly moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools, according to one lawsuit.
Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of five men alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in Wisconsin did not take sufficient action against the priest.
At a news conference on Thursday in Milwaukee, one of the victims, Arthur Budzinski, said Fr Murphy had begun to assault him when he was 12.
Neither the clerical authorities, nor the police had intervened when he reported it, the 61-year-old said.
Mr Budzinski was asked through a sign language interpreter what he wanted to see happen now.
"Ratzinger can have all of the colonels and lieutenants they want fall on the sword for him, but eventually he has to 'fess up," the interpreter said.
Meanwhile, members of a group of clerical abuse victims who denounced Benedict's handling of the case in a news conference outside the Vatican were briefly detained by Italian police for not having a permit.
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said there was no cover-up, denouncing the allegations as "clearly an ignoble attempt to strike at Pope Benedict and his closest aides at any cost".
The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, called it a "tragic case", but said there was no provision in Church law for automatic punishment.
Fr Lawrence Murphy died in 1998 with no official blemish on his record
He noted that police did investigate the allegations at the time but did not press charges.
The papal spokesman said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese first learned of the allegations and two years before the priest died.
The diocese was asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", he added.
Last week the Pope issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of clerical cover-up scandals.
He has yet to comment on his handling of a child sex abuse case involving a German priest, which developed while Benedict was overseeing the Munich archdiocese.
The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia.
The disgraced priest was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church for another two decades.

Bigoted anti-Catholic s*** on Harry's Place

2010-03-25T16:51:00.000-07:00

Excuse my language but I think one is entitled to express one's revulsion at this disgusting sight.

Marco Tranchino who typed that appalling garbage is something to do with a group (or website) called Facciamobrecchia. You can read for yourselves an example of its borderline personality-disorder output here.

I mean, saints preserve us, when was the last time you read such cretinous make-it-up-as-you-go-along junk-history - and do I hear you say David Irving, at the back?

Read it, go ahead read it. Right there in the first - first! - paragraph are a cluster of claims which are so mad that its author deserves the ignominious title Falsifier of History.

Pius XI an accomplice of Nazism!

Pius XI, the Pope of Non Abbiamo Bisogno, of Mit Brennender Sorge, the Pope who imparted the following words to a group of Belgian pilgrims in 1938:

"Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites"

Marco Tranchino asks thinking humans to accept that Pope Pius XI was an accomplice of Nazism. And in turn Harry's Place asks us to take this basketcase's words seriously and what is more to act upon them, attaching the headline, "now is the time to be heard" to his hatred-fomenting cynical opportunist bollocks.

Unsurprisingly Tranchino, who hails from an organisation which tells disgraceful lies about a dead Pope, makes some intriguing claims about the Vatican - for which no supporting evidence is supplied - and misrepresents the truth about Crimen Sollicitationis. This is what he said:

"The Pope failed to ask Cardinal Brady, Head of the Irish Catholic Church, to resign now that he has admitted his attempts to cover-up cases of sex abuse and has revealed that he attended meetings where two 10-year-olds were forced to sign vows of silence over complaints against Father Brendan Smyth, who continued abusing children for another 18 years."

Tranchino fails to mention the very pertinent fact that that the man who would become Cardinal Brady believed the two ten year olds and reported to his then bishop that action should be taken against Father Brendan Smyth. Of course he fails to mention it. Neither Tranchino, nor Harry's Place blogger, Outrage partisan and key member of the No Pope Campaign, Brett Lock are interested in an honest audit of Brady and the Church's actions, they want heat shed on the matter, not light. Tranchino goes on:

"However the responsibility for the cover-up cannot be on Cardinal Brady alone, since he was obeying orders from the Vatican. When the Pope talks of the superiors he should mention himself as the main person responsible for the cover-up. For 24 years the current Pope – then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in charge of dealing with all cases of priestly sex abuse reported from all over the world. On the 18th of May 2001 Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to the bishops confirming that for all cases of sexual abuse the highest secrecy was required, the so called Secretum pontificium whose violation would have meant excommunication: banishment from the Catholic Church."

A few things are worth noting, at this juncture. First, some of Cardinal Brady's actions in 1975 may have ill-judged but it's the first time that I've heard of a cover-up in which a priest recommends to his bishop that action should be taken against a clerical sex-abuser.

Secondly, I haven't read anywhere else that Brady was in 1975 acting on the Vatican's orders, not, nota bene, his bishop's but the Vatican's. Neither is a link provided to any story which vouchsafes the same. Is Tranchino careless with the claims he makes, deliberately lying, in possession of some world-exclusive documentary evidence which supports his assertion, or what?

Thirdly, Tranchino must again be privy to some explosive information about the then Cardinal Ratzinger's role in all this which he is reluctant to disclose at the present time, for he confidently asserts that Ratzinger was "the main person involved in the cover up". This was in 1975 when Ratzinger was nowhere near the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and some two years before he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising! In 1975 Ratzinger was working as an academic at the University of Regensburg. How then he was intimately involved, or involved at all in the goings on in the goings on in the Irish Diocese of Kilmore, Tranchino doesn't care the explain.

Then there's his treatment of Crimen sollicitationis in which he fails to mention, probably because he hasn't bothered to find out, that the Church demands that anyone propositioned by a priest in the confessional denounce them within a month or face excommunication, a penalty which is only lifted on denuncation or the promise to do so.

Whether Tranchino engages in these misrepresentations and wild accusations through laziness or deliberate dishonesty is impossible to say but it's indicative of his motivations that he does so in order to advertise a campaign against the Pope.

This blog has tackled the subject of sex abuse and the Catholic Church again and again. It has not unreasonably pointed out that her actions should be examined in historic context, that the temper of the times was one which was far more tolerant of adult-minor sexual activity, that this fact should not be divorced from any serious analysis of the Church's response to sex-abuse and that the media's reportage of these stories has left a lot to be desired.

It suits Harry's Place regular, Brett Lock, who is one of those organising the No Pope campaign for his blog to publish such egregious crap, the better to whip up ill-feeling against the Holy See and get a larger turn out at the next anti-Catholic jamboree (the last one was a bit of a flop).

He was challenged about this a few weeks ago by Socialist Unity's Andy Newman who gently suggested to him that the No Pope Campaign was inflammatory and divisive. Brett's response was to say that,

"Peter’s objection to the Pope’s visit to the UK is that it is a *state* visit and moreover at tax-payer’s expense. OutRage!’s position is that the Catholic Church should pay for the visit itself and that Mr Ratsinger should not be feted by our secular government. We do not object to him entering the UK… however, we reserve the right to peacefully protest against his views and actions.."

But I don't think that's true. The week, indeed the very day that Lock was fulminating against a head of state making an official visit to another friendly state, Mr Jacob Zuma, a man who is said to have some novel ideas about the means to combat HIV infection, was in town on an ... official visit. Did Outrage protest his visit and demand that the South African government pay for it itself? Not that I saw.

And supposing the Pope were to make a pastoral or private visit to the UK, are we to believe that Outrage would not mount a protest against him in those circumstances? I hope we aren't because it would be a quite literally unbelievable claim.

The peaceful nature of the protest against the Pope is stressed too by Tranchino, who said:

"We will demonstrate peacefully. We will hand out flyers, display placards and be available to hear comments and engage in discussions between 12 noon and 2pm."

I'm sure they will protest peacefully, observing the strict letter of the law. Whether they will be in accordance with its spirit is another matter, however. Campaigns which proceed by means of smear, misrepresentation, the dissemination of false history and the demonising of its opponents and protesters carrying nasty placards depicting the Pope as Adolf Hitler cannot be said to be conducive to a public atmosphere devoid of anti-Catholic prejudice.

Tranchino's piece ends with some bizarre thoughts about the Second Vatican Council and the doctrine of papal infallibility ("Papal infallibility was introduced by Pius IX at a time when the Church was a kingdom and ruled part of Italy; it is not in the message of Christ and in fact is rejected by theologians like the Reverend Father Hans Küng") which demonstrate nothing much more than his profound ignorance of Church teaching, history and Matthew's Gospel. And his peice is peppered with irrelevant references to Church teaching on celibacy and birth control on the one hand and a mysterious breed he calls "progressive voices within the Catholic Church" by which he probably means professional anti-Catholics who pretend to be Catholics of the Frances Kissling variety, with whose Catholics for Choice outfit I believe Outrage has worked with in the past, on the other. It's part of the No Pope Campaign's transparent devide et impera strategy in which supposed Catholics will be paraded before the press parroting the No Pope Campaign's line. If any journalists are minded to quote these "Catholics" between now and September's Papal visit, they may care to ask them some probing questions, like when was the last time you went to Mass?

So there it is: a tissue of misrepresentations and ugly distortions about the Pope and Catholicism. Unfortunately we should expect more of the same in the coming weeks and months.

No Justice, no peace

2010-03-23T19:26:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Unite against Fascism joint secretary, Weyman Bennett was charged with conspiracy to commit violent disorder, according to reports. Rather than soberly noting these facts and reserving judgement until a jury of Bennett's peers sees fit to return its verdict on the matter, Harry's Place, still relentlessly pursuing its vendetta against the anti-Zionist left, used the occasion to indulge in an unlovely tirade against Bennett and his party.

Bennett, remember, remains innocent until he is proven otherwise before a court.

Earlier this week it also emerged that the Metropolitan Police has paid damages to protesters it unlawfully arrested during the G8 protests.

It's as well to bear these things in mind before rushing to judgement when a political activist finds himself at loggerheads with the filth.

Hype, hyperbole and Christopher Hitchens

2010-03-22T19:47:00.000-07:00

In a piece written in his famously understated style, Christopher Hitchens presents a fair and balanced analysis of the Catholic Church abuse story.

Just kidding. The old soak didn't get where he is without playing to the gallery.

In his latest denunciation of the Whore of Babylon ("The Roman Catholic Church is headed by a mediocre Bavarian bureaucrat once tasked with the concealment of the foulest iniquity, whose ineptitude in that job now shows him to us as a man personally and professionally responsible for enabling a filthy wave of crime") da Hitch refers to Ratzinger's supposed efforts to obstruct justice:

"Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated 'in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication.' Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble."

He's referring here to the document, Crimen sollicitationis, a letter issued by the Holy Office and signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, updated in 2001 and reissued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, which laid down procedures to be followed in cases where priests had used the confessional to make advances on penitents. This he depicts as a key link in the chain of the Church's criminal conspiracy to cover up sex-abuse cases.

In so doing he ignores the fact that the document goes to extraordinary lengths to see that the faithful denounce priestly sex-abusers, or putting it differently, Hitchens' is telling porkies, perhaps not deliberately - I can well imagine that he finds the boring but necessary business of research an impediment to his literary output. Nonetheless Slate's editorial team (doesn't it employ factcheckers?) deserve a rap on the knuckles for publishing such an outrageous falsehood.

The truth is that Crimen sollicitationis obliges Catholics to denounce priestly sexual advances within a month on pain of excommunication, a penalty which will only be lifted if the individual actually denounces the priest or promises to do so, as the document itself makes abundantly clear:

18. “A member of the faithful who, in violation of the (aforementioned) prescription of Canon 904, knowingly disregards the obligation to denounce within a month the person by whom he or she was solicited, incurs a reserved excommunication latae sententiae, which is not to be lifted until he or she has satisfied the obligation, or has promised seriously to do so” (Can. 2358, § 2)

Either wilfully or lazily, Hitchens also misinterprets Crimen sollicitationis' insistence on secrecy.

In his analysis of Crimen sollicitationis, the doyenne of Vatican correspondents, John Allen patiently explained, "canon lawyers believe there is good reason for secrecy in sex abuse cases. It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops."

At this point it's useful to quote from Sandro Magister's interview with senior CDF official, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, even though those wedded to gothic horror fantasies about the Catholic Church will probably dismiss it as a pack of lies:

Asked about the document's recommendation of secrecy in proceedings, Scicluna noted:

A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right – as everyone does – to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.

Note that comment about the Church not liking showcase justice? I'm sure Christopher Hitchens likes to think of himself as the kind of highminded citizen who opposes witchhunts and Vyshinsky-style kangaroo courts, too. Not for the first time, however, it's the Church's adherence to the basic principles of justice which shows up many of her critics for the illiberal extremists they actually are.

Read the rest of Magister's illuminating interview with Scicluna here.

Anyway, now that I've ruthlessly kicked away a key plank of Hitch's case, what's left? His gloriously drawling prose-style, is the answer. And that, dear reader, is how he should be read: with the same cool superficiality that he applies to his polemics.

Auntie Beeb shows her political impartiality

2010-03-20T16:47:00.000-07:00

The following stories are currently running on BBC News 24's ticker tape:

• British Airways cabin crew have begun and three day strike - British Airways says 1,157 out of about 1,700 staff have ignored the strike and the company will reinstate 18 more shorthaul flights from tomorrow

• Seventy six people have been arrested and several injured during violent clashes between right-wing and anti-fascist extremists and the police in violent clashes during a demonstration in Bolton

Completely impartial, balanced and bias-free treatment of these stories, I'm sure you'll agree. Well done, Auntie!

What Stephen Lawrence taught us

2010-03-20T15:42:00.000-07:00

We know who the killers are,
We have watched them strut before us
As proud as sick Mussolinis',
We have watched them strut before us
Compassionless and arrogant,
They paraded before us,
Like angels of death
Protected by the law.

It is now an open secret
Black people do not have
Chips on their shoulders,
They just have injustice on their backs
And justice on their minds,
And now we know that the road to liberty
Is as long as the road from slavery.

The death of Stephen Lawrence
Has taught us to love each other
And never to take the tedious task
Of waiting for a bus for granted.
Watching his parents watching the cover-up
Begs the question
What are the trading standards here?
Why are we paying for a police force
That will not work for us?

The death of Stephen Lawrence
Has taught us
That we cannot let the illusion of freedom
Endow us with a false sense of security as we walk the streets,
The whole world can now watch
The academics and the super cops
Struggling to define institutionalised racism
As we continue to die in custody
As we continue emptying our pockets on the pavements,
And we continue to ask ourselves
Why is it so official
That black people are so often killed
Without killers?

We are not talking about war or revenge
We are not talking about hypothetics or possibilities,
We are talking about where we are now
We are talking about how we live now
In dis state
Under dis flag, (God Save the Queen),
And God save all those black children who want to grow up
And God save all the brothers and sisters
Who like raving,
Because the death of Stephen Lawrence
Has taught us that racism is easy when
You have friends in high places.
And friends in high places
Have no use whatsoever
When they are not your friends.

Dear Mr Condon,
Pop out of Teletubby land,
And visit reality,
Come to an honest place
And get some advice from your neighbours,
Be enlightened by our community,
Neglect your well-paid ignorance
Because
We know who the killers are.

Benjamin Zephaniah
From Too Black, too strong.

When police protect the Nazis

2010-03-20T15:19:00.000-07:00

So far today more than 70 people, mainly UAF protesters have been arrested at the demonstration in Bolton, including UAF joint secretary, Weyman Bennett and leading SWP member, Martin Smith. This is not unexpected - the demonstration against the EDL earlier this month saw the arrest of some 50 anti-fascists whereas not a single EDL demonstrator came into contact with the long arm of the law - but is arguably indicative of the police's skewed priorities and tendency to see those who oppose fascism as the enemies of law and order.

Last week's Observer carried a piece about an undercover police agent, Officer "A's" infiltration in the late 90s of Youth against Racism in Europe (YRE) an organisation led by the Socialist Party which does what it says on the tin: fight racism in Europe, though diving headlong into excitable bullshit, the Observer peice described its members and those of other anti-fascist groups as "violent far-left activists". As the estimable socialist blogger, Phil BC pointed out, "anyone with a passing acquaintance with the work of the SP and its predecessor, Militant, know political violence has never been part of its tradition." One observes in passing that the same can't be said of the police whose treatment of the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six is well known.

"Officer A" described the lengths he went to embed himself in YRE (he was a so-called "deep swimmer" , a deep-cover police agent who had to immerse himself in his targets' activities) and the supposedly successful outcome of his penetration of the YRE (he learned that a demonstration was going to be larger than expected, something which could have been worked out by the rather cheaper expedient of reading the socialist press).

A key section of "Officer A's" reminiscences concerned the 1993 Unity Demonstration by anti-fascist groups outside the BNP Headquarters in Welling, South East London.

The prelude to the demonstration was the election of BNP candidate Derek Beackon to a council seat in Tower Hamlets and most importantly of all a shocking hike in racist violence in the area, soaring by 210 percent following the opening of the fascist headquarters in Welling in 1989 and including the murders of Stephen Lawrence (pictured), Rohit Duggal and Rolan Adams.
The Observer said:

"Officer A took part in a much larger, far more violent, protest in Welling, south-east London, against a BNP-run bookshop that served as the party's headquarters. Intelligence he obtained revealed that the demo was to be far larger than had been expected and that a particularly violent faction was planning to storm the bookshop and set fire to it, trapping any BNP members inside.

As a result, police leave was cancelled for that weekend and more than 7,000 officers, including a large mounted contingent, were deployed. Instead of being spread out along the entire route, police focused on blocking the main roads leading to the bookshop and forcing the march along a route that would take it away from its target. A violent confrontation ensued with a group of hardcore protesters – Officer A among them – attacking the police lines in an attempt to break through. Dozens of police and protesters were injured in the clashes."

Many others on the demonstration that day remember the event and the police's treatment of legitimate protest against murderous fascist violence very differently. Historian David Renton recalls:

"A small number of people had broken out to the front, and were in front of the main body of the march. To our right, were very large numbers of police. I am told they had 4000 officers on duty that day: a large group of them were there, blocking our route. There was a very strange piece of street-theatre. I could see the chief organizer of the entire event, Julie Waterson, with a megaphone.

The next part is confused in my memory, but I think Julie was trying to explain to the march that the police would not let us pass. She was standing next to another man, who I recognised as the Holocaust survivor Leon Greenman. There were four of five other celebrities with her. Julie was just saying something like 'we are now going to try and meet with the police'. She was quite in mid sentence, when a group of police left their contingent: they weren't officers but riot police, walked towards her quite slowly, and then started laying into her and the delegation with their batons.
All hell broke loose. I was completely stupid, completely forgot the people I was with, and rushed right to the front. Later, there were pictures of the demonstration, for example the front page of the next day's Mail on Sunday has the headline 'Masked Mob stones police' with me in the middle of it. I remember individuals trying to rush the police, and then being knocked back with their long batons. The police would break out in waves and try and attack the crowd."

He added:

"Afterwards, I heard different things: that every police officer in London had had their leave cancelled, that the march cost more than £1 million to police. Some papers reported that 60 people had been hurt – I think 60 were in hospital, many more were injured. I don't think there were hardly any arrests on the day – the police were under orders to maim, to take no prisoners. The coverage in the press afterwards was violent and incendiary. A man I knew Jeff had its picture in the Sun, he was accused of throwing bricks at the police. He had been, after a friend of his was injured. He lost his job and he was so nervous about being prosecuted, he had to leave the country."

Let it be duly noted that in that same year - 1993 - the Metropolitan Police in South East London was doing its level best not to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence and arrest its perpetrators. At the time the police, which has a track record of leaking nasty information about people it doesn't like - remember the smearing of Stephen Lawrence's friend, Duwayne Brooks, and those raided in Forest Gate and the whispering campaign against the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, not to mention the posthumous smearing of Jean Charles de Menezes when he was barely cold - put it about that it had encountered a "wall of silence" from the local community about Lawrence's murder, that its hands were tied because of the dearth of information available.

The Macpherson Report exposed those claims for the egregious self-serving rubbish they were. Contrary to the police's version of events it emerged that the local community was positively bursting with information about what had happened on the evening of 22nd April 1993 and who had done precisely what. Indeed, the evidence showed that the investigation was so wilfully incompetent that Dr Richard Stone who sat on the Macpherson Inquiry commented revealingly, "there was a large amount of information that the police were either not processing or were suppressing" and he observed "a strong smell of corruption" about the whole matter.

The fact that the incomprehensibly wealthy Clifford Norris, father of Lawrence murder suspect, David Norris, is said to have had friendly relations with key police personnel, is, I suppose, purely coindidental, just as it must have been a simple oversight on the part of the relevant police officers that they failed to give Stephen Lawrence first-aid when they found him that night, fatally injured, his life-blood draining away.

To date no one has been convicted of Stephen Lawrence's murder and only one police officer, senior detective inspector, Ben Bullock, faced disciplinary charges for his role in the extraordinarily incompetant police investigation. In 1997 the Lawrence family launched a formal complaint with the Police Complaints Authority, which exonerated officers who had worked on the case of racism. Bullock, second in command of the investigation into Stephen Lawrence's murder was found guilty of failure to brief officers properly and failure to investigate fully an anonymous letter sent to police but was acquitted of 11 other charges and promptly retired the day after his punishment was announced, as did four other officers who would also have been charged as a result of the inquiry. And at the beginning of this month it emerged that there would be no further action taken against a retired police officer and civilian staff worker arrested over claims that evidence was hidden during the Stephen Lawrence murder enquiry.
One appreciates that the police has a job to do but seen in this context - the record shows that pots of money have been thrown at placing undercover operatives in anti-fascist organisations and policing anti-fascist demonstrations at the same time that investigations into racist murders were strangely mishandled - and the old anti-fascist chant, "police protect the Nazis" seems more than legitimate. What a crazy state of affairs that is.

Ruth Kelly MP wants YOU to demonstrate against the EDL in Bolton tomorrow

2010-03-19T16:07:00.000-07:00

From UAF:

The Bolton Unity Statement

We the undersigned completely oppose plans by the English Defence League to hold an anti-Muslim protest in Bolton on Saturday 20 March.
The EDL is a group of racists and football hooligans with close links to the fascist British National Party. When the EDL came to Manchester in October, Muslim graves in the area were desecrated. When the EDL came to Stoke-on-Trent in January, the words "Islam scum" and "EDL" were daubed on a local mosque.
Islamophobia – bigotry against Muslims – is as unacceptable as any other form of racism. Its aim is to divide us by making scapegoats of one community, as the Nazis did with the Jews in the 1930s.
Today they threaten mosques, tomorrow it could be a synagogue, temple or church. Today they threaten Muslims, tomorrow it could be Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, black, Asian or Eastern European people, travellers or lesbian, gay and transgender people.
We have beaten fascists and racists before by standing up in unity against them. We cannot stand by and let these racists attack any section of our community.
Let's gather in such large numbers that we make it clear to these fascist and racist thugs that they are not welcome here. Let's protest against the racists and fascists, oppose their politics of hatred and defend Bolton’s diverse and united community.
We call on everyone to support and attend the protest against the EDL in Bolton on Saturday 20 March.
Signatories include: Ruth Kelly MP, John Leech MP, Sir Gerald Kaufman MP, Tony Lloyd MP, Margaret Hodge MP, Dawn Butler MP, Beverley Hughes MP, David Chaytor MP, Graham Stringer MP, Ken Livingstone, Christine Blower (NUT), Billy Hayes (CWU), Hugh Lanning (PCS).

Don't let African Caribbean, Jewish, Asian people, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, Eastern Europeans and lesbian, gay and transgender people be threatened be terrorised by fascists.

Remember Pastor Neimoller and show your opposition to the EDL.

Response to clerical abuse report - a couple of letters in the Irish Times

2010-03-18T18:23:00.000-07:00

From the Irish Times

Madam, – Niall O’Donohoe (December 7th) referred to Prof Neil O’Doherty’s lecture in 1980 concerning sexual abuse of children and the resulting severe criticism Prof O’Doherty received for even suggesting such things were happening in Ireland of that time.
Now I feel strongly that it is in the context of that time and later that this issue should be studied and not the partially media driven witch-hunt and scapegoating of auxiliary bishops of Dublin past and present. Truth and justice is not served in such scapegoating.
As was revealed, of course serious errors of judgment were made by the church authorities, but they were made in the context of the time. This is not by way of making excuses for the great damage that so many suffered by these crimes of depravity committed by men who totally betrayed the scared trust given to them at ordination.
Less than 20 years ago most educated people had never heard of the word paedophilia. As far as I am aware, professional and statutory bodies did not know how to deal with the problem when it arose. The judiciary would give out suspended sentences with a warning to offenders. The social services and Garda would often ignore information given to them of allegations in their area. They were extremely hesitant to intrude into the privacy of a family where such abuse might be happening.
The psychological/psychiatric professions sent offenders on treatment programmes and would often certify such people back to their location, or ministry in the case of priests, not realising that a very high percentage reoffended.
Finally. the Department of Education more often than not ignored very abusive teachers in primary and secondary schools throughout the country for decades and teachers’ unions likewise did very little to remove such teachers.
It was only about 15 years ago, when survivors of abuse felt free to tell their stories and be heard in the process, that it finally dawned on society – and not just the church – how appalling a crime sexual abuse is and the great damage it has caused.
Of course one can say the leaders in the Catholic Church should have known better, but in the context of the time they unfortunately did not. They failed – as other professions likewise failed. If bishops have to resign, then, in justice, leaders of other professions and statutory bodies who made serious errors of judgment in this matter should likewise resign. – Yours, etc,
DR GP LEWIS,
Ramleh Park,
Milltown, Dublin 6.

I hope Cardinal Brady read Dr Lewis's letter because it's bang on the money. The temper of those times - the 60s and 70s from when a lot of the child abuse scandals date, is something to which this blog has drawn attention. Quite simply attitudes to sex-abuse then were very different to those which prevail today, though it suits the commentariat and career "sex abuse victim advocates" to ignore that fact. Brady shouldn't not allow himself to be forced out by a media-driven witchhunt, the expressed child-centred sentiments of which stink to high heaven of insincerity.

Next an unintentionally revealing epistle by a Rosemary O'Keefe, from County Donegal. O'Keefe intends her missive to be yet another shouty-bollox rant against the Church but she throws in a short sentence which changes the whole effect of her letter. Something makes me suspect she's a not-the-sharpest-knife-in-the-drawer type of person.

Madam, – My first job as a young teacher in 1975 was in the Girls’ National School in Cromcastle Green, Coolock, Dublin. I worked there for four years.
Noel Reynolds was the curate in the area and was often in the school. I didn’t pay much attention to him. He was said to be very “charismatic”. I thought he was quite an ugly-looking, boring man and had nothing much to say to him. Little did I know that he was a paedophile preying on young girls, possibly even some of the lovely little girls in my class. I doubt if I had even heard the word paedophile then.
It makes my blood boil to know that he had access to those children through the school and that he and others like him were being moved around to schools and hospitals prowling on children.
It’s time indeed to separate church and State. – Yours, etc,
ROSEMARY O’KEEFFE,
Rectory Road,
Ramelton, Co Donegal.

Hat tip: Shane on Damian Thompson's comments box, where he also pointed out that "Der Spiegel (founded by a committed Nazi) has offered €1 million to the first person who accuses the Pope of sexual abuse." Tasteful or what? Shane's blog looks very well worth a read, by the way. Check it out, here.

Beannacht Lá Fhéile Pádraig

2010-03-17T07:10:00.000-07:00

Happy St Patrick's Day.

Here's St Patrick's Breastplate:

I bind to myself today

The strong virtue of the Invocation of the Trinity:
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

I bind to myself today
The virtue of the Incarnation of Christ with His Baptism,
The virtue of His crucifixion with His burial,
The virtue of His Resurrection with His Ascension,
The virtue of His coming on the Judgement Day.
I bind to myself today
The virtue of the love of seraphim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the hope of resurrection unto reward,
In prayers of Patriarchs,
In predictions of Prophets,
In preaching of Apostles,
In faith of Confessors,
In purity of holy Virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.
I bind to myself today
The power of Heaven,
The light of the sun,
The brightness of the moon,
The splendour of fire,
The flashing of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of sea,
The stability of earth,
The compactness of rocks.
I bind to myself today
God's Power to guide me,
God's Might to uphold me,
God's Wisdom to teach me,
God's Eye to watch over me,
God's Ear to hear me,
God's Word to give me speech,
God's Hand to guide me,
God's Way to lie before me,
God's Shield to shelter me,
God's Host to secure me,
Against the snares of demons,
Against the seductions of vices,
Against the lusts of nature,
Against everyone who meditates injury to me,
Whether far or near,
Whether few or with many.
I invoke today all these virtues
Against every hostile merciless power
Which may assail my body and my soul,
Against the incantations of false prophets,
Against the black laws of heathenism,
Against the false laws of heresy,
Against the deceits of idolatry,
Against the spells of women, and smiths, and druids,
Against every knowledge that binds the soul of man.
Christ, protect me today
Against every poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against death-wound,
That I may receive abundant reward.
Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in the fort,
Christ in the chariot seat,
Christ in the poop [deck],
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I bind to myself today
The strong virtue of an invocation of the Trinity,
I believe the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the Universe.

When Irish eyes are smiling

2010-03-17T07:01:00.000-07:00

Well done Bishop Roche!

Yes! High Court rules in favour of Catholic Care Adoption Agency

2010-03-17T06:46:00.000-07:00

Statement from Catholic Care

The Court has confirmed that Catholic Care was correct in its reading of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 and has agreed with us that Regulation 18 can apply to any charity subject to it being in the public interest. We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process that without being able to use this exemption children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.

Catholic Care has been providing specialist adoption services for over 100 years. We have helped hundreds of children though the recruitment, assessment, training and support for prospective adoptive parents as well as offering on-going and post-adoption support to families that give such security and love for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. The judgement today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities.
+ The Right Reverend Arthur Roche
Bishop of Leeds
March 17th 2010

No Elinor Kapp, I think the old canard is all yours

2010-03-16T19:40:00.000-07:00

Someone called Elinor Kapp taking umbrage at Ruth Gledhill's reasoned and reasonable analysis of the Church's response to sex abuse in the past, opined thusly in a letter published in Monday's Times:

Sir, I was deeply saddened by your article “Paedophile priest sent for therapy by Pope was allowed to carry on working” (Mar 13) and particularly by Ruth Gledhill’s repetition in her analysis of the old canard that in 1980 “What is often forgotten is how little was known of paedophilia”. On the contrary, within the children’s professions by that time we all knew that the majority of abusers would manipulate in whatever way they could do to deny wrongdoing and continue their behaviour. It was also made clear that all cases known to professionals must be reported to the authorities, to avoid exactly the collusion that tragically appears to continue to operate in the Roman Catholic Church.
Elinor Kapp
Child psychiatrist
Cardiff

I'll give Elinor Kapp the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she expressed her views in genuine ignorance of the historical record. Maybe she is unaware of the debate around decriminalising, indeed destigmatising adult-child sexual relationships in such prominent pillars of the liberal establishment as the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) now Liberty in the 70s and early 80s.

In contrast to her assertions, that by 1980, "within the children's professions we all knew that the majority of abusers would manipulate in whatever way they could," Philip Jenkins, in his magisterial work, Pedophiles and Priests cites a revealing letter published in the New York Times in 1993:

'A decade or so ago, the state of the art on incest was limited to the work of a half-dozen professionals ... who bravely researched and treated and pondered the forbidden ancient tabloo. Enlightened treatment for victims was limited to a few women therapists. The courts, presided over by male judges, coddled perpetrators. The police, disbelieving and demeaning, further damaged victims.'

Jenkins commented:

This exaggerates the suddenness of the change and there were far more than half a dozen professionals by 1980 but developments were rapid. The first signs of reviving concern appeared in 1977, with congressional hearings on the 'sexual exploitation of children' through abuse, prostitution and pronography ... It was about 1980 that a causal link was asserted to exist between childhood sexual abuse and multiple-personality disorder in later life, a linkage that emphasised still more sharply the devastating effects of childhood trauma; 1980 also brought the first published account of ritual child abuse."

Something also needs to be said about Kapp's suggestion that collusion in sex-abuse "appears to continue to operate in the Roman Catholic Church."

In point of fact, ever since the Bishops Conference of England and Wales and Conference of Religious accepted the recommendations of the Nolan Report in 2001, the Catholic Church in England and Wales has had some of the toughest child protection standards around. Any priest accused of sexual impropriety with a a minor is immediately put on administrative leave and the statutory authorities are notified of the allegations. So unbendingly strict is her approach to child welfare that as this 2002 piece by Tara Holmes points out, some experts have voiced concerns that the Church's child welfare policies are in breach of canon law.

Father Francis Marsden, a theologian and leading newspaper commentator in the United Kingdom, is adamant that procedures outlined in the Nolan Report violate both canon law and natural justice. He argues that the Catholic hierarchy is now "overcompensating" for past failures in its handling of pedophile priests. Father Marsen says:

The Nolan Report has recommended a process that does't follow canonical norms. The process of investigation has to fit in with canon law. But in the present climate, a priest is guilty until he's proved innocent.
Father Marsden's comments follow a case in his own Liverpool archdiocese in which a priest was removed from his parish without warning by the vicar general and child protection officers. The accused cleric was returned to his parish a month later after the allegations turned out to be false. His family was so outraged by his treatment that they threatened to sue the archdiocese for damages, and even to take their case before the European Court of Human Rights.
In a sharply worded attack on the new policies, which appeared in his regular weekly Catholic Times column, Father Marsden said: "We all want to stamp out child abuse, but the pendulum has swung too far. The bishops and COPCA need to work out protocols which protect all innocent parties, priests included."

Father Marsden argued that the Nolan committee had "zero authority to make laws for priests." He explained:
Only the Holy See has the right to alter canon law. Nolan's guidelines have only the authority of a local bishop who chooses to introduce them into his diocese. Where Nolan's rules clash with canon law, the bishop is acting ultra vires--illegally--should he attempt to apply them. A priest who knows his rights can simply refuse to comply with illegal demands.
Father Marsden said the Code of Canon Law contained "nothing about 'immediate administrative leave.'" He also observed: "Although neutral in theory, Nolan-style 'administrative leave' can in practice destroy a priest's reputation and apostolate."
Father Marsen argued:
No diocesan official or child-protection officer has any right to arrive unannounced and order a parish priest out of his presbytery. The processes which must be followed in such cases are laid down in the Code of Canon Law, in the Penal Process section (1717-31).

I don't know whether these procedures have been subject to change since Holmes' piece was published - in 2007 the Church appointed yet another independent commission to look into child protections policies chaired by Baroness Cumberledge and in fairness Cumberledge recognised the difficulties between Nolan on the one hand and canon law on the other - but the case of the Liverpool priest dovetails with a similar case I have heard about which took place in London a few years ago. There too, the priest was summarily whisked away from his pastoral duties and put on administrative leave while a police enquiry took place over a period of months resulting in his being totally exonerated and a much lengthier Church investigation was carried out. When he was finally returned to his parish without a stain on his name, his parishioners, who felt he'd been unfairly treated, welcomed him back with a standing ovation.

So from whence comes Elinor Kapp's notion that the Church appears still to be colluding with child abuse? It must refer to Richard Owen's story in The Times about Father "H" and reports of child abuse allegations in religious run schools in Germany. She appears to have confused accounts of historical abuse with contemporary incidences of clerical malfeasance and accusations with convictions. She is by no means the only person to have done so. Cynical opportunists have done such a thorough job of smearing the Church, that any attempt to shine the torch of reason on this complicated subject typically results in charges of excuses being made and other people being blamed for the Church's dirty deeds. One must allow for the possibility that one is just another useful idiot. On the other hand, maybe just maybe the Whore of Babylon is such a convincing pantomime villain in the popular imagination that its one people find it impossible to discard.

Quiz Time

2010-03-15T15:23:00.000-07:00

Who said this about the Whore of Babylon?

"Not one crime is lacking from perjury through incest to sexual murder ... Behind the walls of monasteries and in the ranks of the Roman brotherhood what else may have been enacted that is not publically known and has not been expiated through this world's courts? What may not the church have succeeded in hushing up? All this is the expression and consequence of a system that has elevated unto a principle that whihc is against nature and of an organisation that has withdrawn itself from public control."

Where those quotations came from

2010-03-15T13:33:00.000-07:00

In February I blogged some quotations about paedophilia and asked my readers if they could guess their provenance.

Voltaire's Priest thought they came from some 70s or 80s campaign - he wasn't entirely far from the truth - whereas Mark from LibCom thought they hailed from the Sparts.

An anonymous commenter who again wasn't entirely off track said, "reads like an old PIE document (used to cover pages in Peace News and some early IMG leaflety think pamphlets in the mid to late '70s)," adding, "The question is, why?

I'll come to why in a moment but first I'll tell you where they came from:

They didn't come from the Sparts although the Sparts have long held and shouted about their position that the age of consent laws should be abolished, something for which that group as well as the wider left have for long been slammed.

The documents, which were handed to be by an enterprising researcher a few years ago, in fact hailed from the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty.

A motion tabled at the NCCL AGM in either 1980 or 1982 (the script is unclear) read as follows:

Motion 31: This AGM notes with disapproval the continued harassment of the organisations Paedophiles Information Exchange and Paedophiles Action for Liberation, who are working for the rights of adults who are sexually interested in children. We affirm that the existance of these and any other lawful pressure groups should be threatened by neither press nor police.

Whether the motion was passed or not I don't know. I believe the NCCL's general secretary at the time was Patricia Hewitt and its legal officer one, Harriet Harman. Patrica Hewitt was one of the speakers at a meeting held in 1980 to discuss 'Child Abuse Registers, do they undermine the civil liberties of parents and their children?'

Why do I point this out? Not to smear organisations like Liberty or people like Patricia Hewitt but to demonstrate that very different ideas about paedophilia were current, indeed considered respectable in past decades. They were of their time and a lot of people subscribed to them. It puts the Church's actions in those years in some sort of historic context. Contrary to hysterical depictions of the Church as a mass-paedophile ring operating in a cynical and amoral vacuum, her response to clerical sex-abuse did then and does now mirror the attitudes and ideas of wider society.

The 1977 Petition against age of consent laws

2010-03-15T13:28:00.000-07:00

From Wikipedia

In 1977, a petition was addressed to the parliament calling for the abrogation of several articles of the age-of-consent law and the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen (the age of consent in France).

The document was signed by the philosophers Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, by the philosopher and semiotician Roland Barthes, by the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem, the actor/play-writer/jurist Jean Danet, the writer and filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet (elected in 2004 a member of the Académie Française), the writer Philippe Sollers, the pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and also by people belonging to a wide range of political positions.

As I recall, when some enterprising journalist brought this to the public's attention in the 1990s it caused a storm of outrage. Satre, the conscience of the nation, putting his name to such a thing! He must have been in the advanced stages of senility, people reasoned. Or maybe he didn't read the document.

Oh how short their memories are.

Trial by media hits the Vatican

2010-03-15T13:24:00.000-07:00

Paddy Power has slashed odds on the Pope's resignation, pretend Catholic groups are holding events "in solidarity with" European victims of clerical abuse in a characteristic fit of opportunism, columnists are sharpening their hyperbole and the ubiquitous Colm O'Gorman is available for comment around the clock. We're about to get trial by media again because ....

The clerical sex scandal has reached the Vatican.

Pope knew priest was a paedophile but allowed him to continue with ministry, The Thunderer thunders.

The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria.

The priest was sent from Essen to Munich for therapy in 1980 when he was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex. The archdiocese confirmed that the Pope, who was then a cardinal, had approved a decision to accommodate the priest in a rectory while the therapy took place.

The priest, identified only as H, was subsequently convicted of sexually abusing minors after he was moved to pastoral work in nearby Grafing. In 1986 he was given an 18-month suspended jail sentence and fined DM 4,000 (£1,800 today). There have been no formal charges against him since.

Ok, hold it right there.

Look at that date again.

1980.

And look again at the details of the story:

The priest was sent from Essen to Munich for therapy in 1980 when he was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex ...The priest, identified only as H, was subsequently convicted of sexually abusing minors after he was moved to pastoral work in nearby Grafing.

So disentangling the various threads of Richard Owen's report, Pope Benedict is charged with moving a priest accused of sex offences to pastoral work, or perhaps for sending him to therapy, instead of casting him to the dogs. It isn't entirely clear. All this in 1980, remember. The Thunderer goes on:

The church has been accused of a cover-up after at least 170 allegations of child abuse by German Catholic priests. The scandal broke in January but the claims, which continue to emerge, span three decades. Critics say that priests were redeployed to other parishes rather than dismissed when they were found to be abusing children.

The "critics" and Richard Owen speak with the benefit of hindsight. It is now taken as given that paedophiles - the term strictly refers to those sexually attracted to prepubescent children, though leader writers and activists have found it convenient to blur the distinction and label anyone who has a sexual relationship with a minor, whether consensual or not a "paedophile" - have an incurable, uncontrollable predilection for child sex abuse, so much so that researchers now debate the whys and wherefores of the voluntary castration of sex-offenders.

This thinking, that an individual is at the mercy of their sexual instincts, runs counter to the Church's traditional understanding of sin, in which the faithful plead the Almighty to forgive them for their sins, committed through their own fault, in their thoughts and in their words, in what they have done and what they have failed to do.

For as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, sin is

"a voluntary act, lacking in due rectitude" being found "as a subject principally in the will" and that "the exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example."

We can espy a shift in the Church's approach towards what might be called the pathologisation of sin by 1980; Father H wasn't told given a harsh penance and firmly told to control himself, he was sent for therapy.

The Church is now being assailed for this but in 1980 she was probably acting according to the latest expert advice. For as we shall see, attitudes to sex abuse then were very different to those which prevail now. Oh yes they were.

Real Love

2010-03-12T08:35:00.001-08:00

Don't Walk Away

2010-03-12T08:03:00.000-08:00

Large parts of my misspent youth, the best parts that is, were spent in London's hip hop soul clubs. There was RESPECT at The Wag, Rotation at Subterrania and always, Fresh n Funky at the Iceni (£3 before 11, £5 thereafter).

Here's Jade's Don't Walk Away and it comes with a shout out to Nicky Vernage and neice Stephanie Pierre. Very sorry to hear about your mum, Connie. She loved this tune.

The Lady of Soul

2010-03-11T16:54:00.000-08:00

is Jenny Francis.

on

Choice FM.

Black, British, loud and proud. She's playing some seriously good British rap right now.

Turn it on, crank it up and sit on it, as LOS says.