I have been passed a private and confidential memorandum passed between the Bishops of England and Wales on those battles that the Church can win.
Catholics have been assured that there are some battles that are not worth getting upset or worried about because we can't win them.
So, here they are, as we enter a new phase of the battle to keep faith in the public sphere, the battle to defend the sanctity of human life and to preserve those vital humanity-continuing institutions, such as marriage, from destruction and redefinition by the State...here are the battles we canwin.
The following are the battlefronts that Catholics can expect the Bishops of England and Wales to be fighting. These are exciting times to be Catholic and a dreadful time to be an enemy of the Church. Hear our Shepherds roar! Begone, vile enemies of Christ the Lord, for on these grounds, we shall defeat you!
Tiddlywinks. No game of tiddlywinks is easy. We all know how heated and tense this battle can be. However, the memorandum circulated around our Bishops suggest that, so long as Catholics only play tiddlywinks with each other - and don't try to take on people outside of the Church who might outperform them - this is a battle that Catholics can win!
CAFOD: There is a war going on and part of the war is overseas development. The Bishops see that the battle to ensure the sustainable development of overseas nations can be won, as long as we play by the rules. Thankfully, the rules have been set by the UK Government, so the battle is not with them - no the battle is against poverty and ecological disaster. Here, the Bishops see the battle can be won. It doesn't matter if, in the heat of battle against want and famine, we allow CAFOD to use condoms to win these battles. To complain against the widespread distribution of condoms by CAFOD staff to black people is pointless because if we did that we wouldn't be playing by the rules and, thankfully, the Government set the rules, along with such supranational institutions as the UN Population Fund. We can win this!
The Cuts: The Bishops see inroads can be made in this battle. The Left are angered by the Government's cuts. Apart from the scandalous effect this will have on Britain's poor, there is nothing that hurts the modern Church more than seeing over-sized bureaucracies being cut, streamlined and made more effective. The whole point of the public sector is that it makes jobs out of thin air for the middle class! As long as the Church joins with the Labour Party, trade unions and The Guardian, She will keep her 'right on' image, become more popular with Polly Toynbee and defend public sector jobs to boot. Fight the good fight, my Lords! Of course, the Bishops could battle against the NHS who have been temporarily sterilizing school girls without their mums and dads' permission and murdering the elderly by starving them to death. But hey. Let's not pick fights we can't win, because nobody has ever taken on the NHS and won...especially not Catholic nurses who don't want to assist in the performing of abortions. Be careful with your battles, my Lords. Pick the ones you can win - that way, success is guaranteed! We all know the only thing that makes the Lord Jesus (who sacrificed Himself in order to win no small battle Himself - the redemption of the World) happy, is the sight of pragmatic Catholics willing to compromise with the forces of evil in order to preserve public reputation, respectability and safety.
The Environment: Despite the calamitous 'Climategate' saga in which leading scientists were revealed to have doctored research results on the climate, in the public mind, carbon is still a force for evil in the World. When Bishops fight evil, evil cowers and runs for the hills.
By joining forces with the misanthropic Greens, who absorbed most of the hard left after the discrediting of communism, the Church can win the battle for Mother Earth, encourage Catholics to take every measure possible to save the environment and avoid persecution when the UN tells countries to adopt a two-child policy. That way, not only do we avoid persecution, but we win the battle against carbon emissions with the help of eco-fanatics! None of the faithful thought much of Humane Vitae anyway. Most people think its a brand of mineral water. It's a win!
TV Talent Shows: Susan Boyle confirmed that Catholics have the potential to win talent shows. The Bishops intend to set up a Catholic talent training academy so that Catholics can battle on the front line of glitzy wannabe shows like X-Factor and Pop Idol. This is a battle Catholics can win! A battle for minds...and hearts!
Catholic Quiz Night: The Bishops see one battle that can be won, almost certainly, in setting up a monthly Catholic Quiz Night in which members of Parliament and the civil service are invited over for dinner to be followed by a scintillating quiz. As long as Bishops tell their liturgy and music advisors to come up with the questions for the Quiz Night, a Catholic Quiz Night against atheists and agnostics is bound to be a battle that the Church can win. As well as prominent Bishops taking on members of the British State, in the Catholic team will be the editorial team and trustees of The Tablet. So long as no Catholic Quiz Night questions involve any Catholic trivia concerning the events in the Church before 1967, or much about the documents of the Second Vatican Council themselves, then this is one battle the Church can finally win...and against the State at that!
The Battle Over Marriage: Ah yes, the big one!The Bishops see the battle over marriage to be a tricky one to win, but - and hear me out here - but only if you look at it from a traditionally Catholicperspective.
The memorandum I have seen suggests that this battle over marriage can indeed be won, so long as the Church's public criticism of same-sex marriage is so quiet that people believe there is no resistance to it whatsoever.
In order to win the battle over marriage, all we have to do is lay-low for a few months until this stuff gets passed in Parliament. Hedgehogs hibernate. We can hibernate too! After that, we can all come out of hiding and adopt a new and enlightened way of thinking about the institution formerly known as marriage. Admittedly, it's a risky strategy because the Pope wouldn't like it, but we all know that there are far more Bishops in the Church than there are Popes. This is a battle the Bishops can win! All the Catholic Church in England and Wales has to do is quietly switch sides! It's a similar policy to that which the Bishops adopted over the Equality Act and the loss of Catholic adoption agencies. Just pretend the problem isn't there and it does, eventually, go away. It is a similar policy to that adopted when Summorum Pontificum was released. All you have to do is lay low and not open anything from Rome for a while and, hey presto, you're such a force to be reckoned with you can even take on the Pope! See, also, for further examples, the Act of Supremacy, 1559.
Thanks be to God that our Bishops have the good sense to pick their battles wisely. Our Shepherds are leading us to a new and glorious vision of the Church and State relationship. One of friendliness, warmth, interaction, of endless dialogue and victories in several key areas, as highlighted above. May God always keep them even more faithful to Christ and His Church, today, as this exciting memorandum suggests they were yesterday.
Anyone concerned by the trends towards a totalitarian State in Britain, as evidenced, most recently by the Government drive to implant 14 year olds with contraceptive implants, should watch this video by a political group exposing the role of Common Purpose in Government and society.
Most interesting to me was this speakers ability to join the dots in the personnel involved in the removal of democracy and freedom in the UK and his proof that major banks, including Rothschild Bank, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are funding the entire operation.
We desperately need a new political party in the United Kingdom because as far as I can see, all the mainstream political parties are up to their necks in this subversion of democracy.
I've seen two A-Board headlines from The Argus in one week that were attention grabbers.
The first was The Argus's report, which on first sight I imagined concerned 'gay marriage'. It was entitled, 'Is it The End for Mr and Mrs?'.
If you read it, you'll see this news report in fact concerns a Councillor who would like to see all council forms and paperwork to be 'gender neutral' for the public. What a quirky idea!
Talking of how cumbersome gender is in the modern world, the Council's Deputy Leader, a Green chap, I believe, says:
“Trans people aren’t necessarily male or female and sometimes they don’t want to be defined by their gender. Putting Mr and Mrs on a form is completely useless. This is an issue that concerns most institutions from banks to mobile phone companies. Why is Mr on my debit card, for instance? I don’t understand why it’s there. We should at least examine the issue and we will have the recommendations early next month.”
Read them and you'll be able to compare and contrast what strange ideas obsess those in political authority, even at a local level, and the reality of the profoundly distressing economic situation for many, many people living in Brighton and Hove who scrape by, often with the assistance of charities, just to eat a meal and feed children.
Then, extend this trend of politicians talking up issues relating to the homosexual predilections of a few and the desire (though I'm yet to be convinced that many desire this) of these to enter into marriage and you have politicians who are completely out of touch with voters not just at a national level (like we didn't know that), but at a local level too, certainly in Brighton.
I might add that Caroline Lucas MP and her Earth-preserving at the expense of people entourage, as far as I know, since the closure of St Patrick's nightshelter, have done jack diddly squat for the homeless and poor of Brighton and Hove.
If what the Bishop of Arundel and Brighton says is true, it explains quite a lot about the Bishops' Conference's lack of willingness to boldly fight and proclaim the truth on a range of issues including...
A Conservative minister is planning to use the power of the State to encourage a sector of the population to stop breeding. The name of that minister is Iain Duncan Smith and that minister is a Catholic.
It just goes to show that you can use the welfare state to economically manipulate people into a two-child policy.
The reaction of 'the right' in the UK is to say that these people can get jobs. Of course they can get jobs, but how do a man and a woman with little education and a CV that says they've had little work experience earn enough to have more than one or two children, pay for Council Tax, heating and water bills, food and electricity?
How does IDS, a Catholic, suggest these 'problem families' limit their breeding? With artificial contraception and abortion, perhaps? So, we see now, that abortion and artificial contraception, that procedure and those products advertised as a woman's 'choice', could well become an economic necessity when the State deems some families too expensive to prop up. Of course, if poor families become poorer, I suppose the role of Social Services will widen and deepen with those children not aborted but financially impossible to support are voluntarily given into the care system that turns out disturbed teenager after disturbed teenager.
Interesting, isn't it, that a creature of 'the right' can, in times of economic hardship become a creature of the hard left?
Just to remind you, both David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith have four children each. Who pays their wages?
You do!
Who is propping up their lavish lifestyle and their families which, by modern day standards are large?
You are!
Who abused the expenses system in Parliament allowing them to claim housing benefit for various homes?
Why, our beloved Parliamentarians of course! God bless 'em!
Perhaps he hasn't thought about it, but really IDS, the Catholic Conservative, is introducing the UK to China by the back door.
A short history of the past 60 years of Britain:
The 'Left' hand created the instruments for the creation of a dystopia.
The 'Right' hand finished off the job and enacted its final phase, including the introduction of the Marxist cultural hand grenade of 'gay marriage'.
Makes you wonder whether there are people above our politicians 'pulling the strings' doesn't it? Well, we should ask the question, who got us to where we are now, this time of 'economic hardship'? Was it the poor? Was it people on benefits? Single mothers? Was it even politicians? Nope. It was banks...
All the politicians are doing is responding to the crisis.
As for work, well, admittedly things aren't quite as bad here as they are in Spain, with 25% unemployment...yet.
They say that 'gay marriage' won't affect natural marriage if it is passed, yet it is clear that already marriage as traditionally understood is no longer promoted.
Gay marriage, on the other hand, is. Already there is an imbalance in the promotion of marriage and the legislation isn't even here yet.
Marriage is not promoted in schools, but we're assured that 'same-sex marriage' will be. So, quite how marriage as an institution will be treated after 'SSM' comes in is hardly an unknown. It is a fate already known.
Clearly, what Government wants is a 'pink' workforce, not because of the sexual liberation of its workers, but so that its citizens will not concentrate on building a family, but on economic slavery. In fact, a new book, written by a feminist, called The End of Men is a boast by the authoress that the outcomes of feminism has led to successful women and a depressed sector of the population - men - who find their experience after the sexual revolution as one of depression, lack of purpose and role and disempowerment.
Still, though, for most men and most women, the result is the same. Both have the dignity of work - yes for both sexes - but also the accompanying daily grind of wage slavery too - for both sexes. The promotion of SSM is an added boon to those who seek the continued wage slavery of the whole population into an economic machine.
By opting for the promotion of gay marriage and many childless couples, more men and more women are co-opted into the 'pink' pound. But here's the thing - the economy is becoming so child unfriendly - so anti-family - that you don't even have to be homosexual or lesbian to join into this economic slavery. So long as couples are sterile in their outlook, the populace are drawn into an economic slavery in which the pursuit of wages and money becomes more important as the cost of living rises. For a couple to be open to more than one or two children requires, now, a supernatural trust and faith in Providence.
Marriage isn't just being redefined in this process as 'gay' or 'straight'. It's being redefined as simply a 'loving relationship'. What this redefinition doesn't include is the procreation of new life. Children are actually being written out of legislation. What its doing is promoting more childless couples, more men and women co-opted into this idea of the 'pink economy', more men and women encouraged into wage slavery as people reject family for money and survival.
The great victory for the architects of the sexual revolution was making women into taxpayers and consumers too, in the process destroying the vocation of motherhood so much that women were encouraged into economic slavery. It is slavery now, because now couples face economic hardship if a mother decides to stay at home and raise children. In fact, there even exists a sense of stigma - especially by the poor - if women decide to stay at home and raise children, despite the fact that it is well known that for women to 'do it all' and be superwomen chasing careers and having children is incredibly difficult.
Destroying the family was essential to economically enslaving the West. Destroying the vocation to motherhood was essential to this. Destroying marriage and replacing it with something sterile serves the interests of our economic masters all too well.
It seems to be about reshaping and redesigning what human beings are for. We were about human relationships, family, marriage and new life. Now, we are about loving relationships that don't stop us in any way from remaining - all of us - remaining as economic slaves, consuming, paying tax and contributing to what is becoming a 'pink economy'.
You have to ask the questions:
Why is it that whenever marriage is promoted by Government and media today, the word 'gay' appears before it?
Why is the institution of marriage never promoted in schools, in the media, or in society, but 'gay marriage' is and will continue to be promoted?
Is there any guarantee that after SSM has been passed that we'll ever see marriage promoted without this prefix again since marriage?
Is it not interesting, and should we not be suspicious, that Government seldom promotes marriage itself, but is happy to promote something that destroys its very meaning and definition?
How can this not be social engineering, not just nationally, but on a global scale?
'Gay marriage' is not just the extension of 'marriage rights' to a minority - it is a dramatic rearrangement of the entire social order, to the benefit of none but a few.
Reading the Metro the other day, a newspaper so bad they give it away at the station, I came across an article concerning the 'tagging' of offenders.
Whatever you think about the effectiveness of current 'law and order' policy in the UK, it is hard not to be a little bit concerned by the obvious human rights issues associated with 'tagging'.
As with the various ASBOs on offer to the courts with which to limit the freedom of people who commit 'anti-social behaviour' like begging and street drinking (how would mendicant friars cope in modern day UK?) 'tagging' offers the authorities a half-way house procedure between locking someone up and depriving them of their liberty in penalty for a crime and leaving the offender to walk around in freedom having committed those offenses which contravene British law.
With prisons full to overflowing, one can certainly see the appeal of this half-way house for the authorities, but I personally do not like the half-way house measure. To me it smacks of a Big Brother solution to offenders. Of course, you are free to disagree with me, especially in the light of recent cases in the media highlighting the sexual predators who were left to roam around the country seeking out who they could devour, even, apparently, in the middle of Mass.
There's another reason, however, why I don't like the idea of electronic tagging of offenders, aside from its Orwellian method and its failure to categorise men as free or imprisoned, but somewhere eerily in-between. The reason is that I get a sneaky suspicion that our 'law and order' policies are going the way of our 'defence' policies. In other words, policies get designed in order to satisfy the makers of bombs, armaments and ammunition. There's no point building all these things that blow people up unless Governments around the World are going to use them and blow people up. So, contracts are won and what decides certain policies could be influenced by what people call the 'military industrial complex'.
So it is with those technologies which grow out of what at first becomes a 'terror State' and becomes a 'police State'. Of course, it is vital that 'tagging' be something that happens to the 'nasty types' before it can be used on others who could become enemies of the State in years to come. Every product needs a market and the 'tagging' technology already has one - repeat offenders and unsuspecting criminals as well as 'anti-social behaviour types'.
Perhaps I'm not explaining my thoughts very well. I think what I mean is that G4S make electronic tagging equipment and fit them. They need to win contracts to get this stuff more out there and fitted onto the ankles of repeat offenders so, obviously, they market it to Governments around the World. Our Government buys a load of electronic tagging devices off G4S and gives G4S, who due to their global reach can battle Somali pirates while manning your local Jobcentre, more contracts to rig up convicted men and women to a call centre somewhere where their every movement can be tracked, surveilled, monitored and so that the security firm at the heart of the Olympics can come along in a van or alert police that the Government would like to privatise and sell off to G4S to arrest or check up on the criminal if he breaks his 'curfew' or if he's on an ASBO, has wandered into an area from which he is banned.
As the Metro article makes clear, Governments can get away with doing 1984 on criminals or repeat offenders because everyone wants law and order and for Government to be tough on crime - not many people like criminals. I think we need to be aware, however, that I guess authorities can keep a man monitored long after his 'debt' to society has been repaid and I guess these things could be put on for life depending upon how 'dangerous' the fellow is perceived to be. And, obviously, this could get out of hand. For instance, as attitudes towards pro-lifers harden, it is not impossible to see a kind of criminality or 'public order offence' being attributed to certain groups, or indeed, anyone who the State deems to be 'dangerous'.
Let me know your thoughts. My feeling is that Government policy is just being driven by lucrative contracts awarded to big companies - rather than developing a coherent strategy towards crime reduction. This way, domestic policy becomes something akin to foreign policy.
Catholics line up to make reparation for Tina Beattie...
Tina Beattie is going out of her way to make average Catholics into Saints by making horrendous and sacrilegious statements in her books concerning the Mass.
In what must only be a cry for help, her latest musings liken the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to hot man-on-man action.
Just hours after the news of Beattie's remarks on the Mass, one Polish Catholic has already exiled himself to Siberia. A woman in Hythe has committed to stepping out of her morning cold shower before work to be greeted by a bathmat of venomous snakes and drawing pins. In Scotland, a man has decided to make a pilgrimage to Walsingham on his knees, a fact made more extraordinary only by the fact he has only one leg. Another man is off to Iran with an A-board which reads, 'I'm a homosexual, want to make something of it?' In Roehampton, where Dr Beattie works as a lecturer on Catholic Studies, Catholics are already lining up to tread slowly on hot coals, saying, 'We are doing this so that these hot coals may serve for Tina's salvation, rather than, well, you get the gist...'
Dr Beattie, astonished by the outpourings of Christian love towards her shown by Catholics across the World was not available for comment, but did issue a press release from her University department which read, simply, 'Nutters!'
'A California schoolboy has been forced to stay at home after his school banned him from attending classes because he carries the gene for cystic fibrosis.
Colman Chadam, 11, carries the genetic mutation for cystic fibrosis but doesn't actually have the disease and shows no outward symptoms.
The disease is incurable and life threatening and causes the body to create a thick mucous that clogs the lungs and can cause deadly infections.
But although it's not contagious, people with the disease or the gene can pose a risk to each other through bacterial cross-contamination if they are in close contact.
The disease effects about 30,000 Americans but more than 10 million Americans carry the defective cystic fibrosis gene without knowing it.
Colman's parents say their son poses no risk to other pupils and are fighting the decision, made by Jordan Middle School, in Palo Alto.
Teachers said Colman must be removed as an undisclosed number of other students at the school already have the disease.
The school argues that, if Colman were allowed to continue attending classes, there is a risk of cross-contamination.
Colman's parents, who said the school has overreacted, are waiting for a court ruling on the matter next Thursday.'
Well, it was, in diplomatic language, a 'constructive meeting' with Caroline Lucas MP in what was a 'mutually respectful dialogue'.
The Green MP for Brighton Pavillion seemed very happy to have before her five Catholics explaining to her their concerns over the proposals for same-sex marriage.
We were, for reasons which will become obvious, I think, able to convey that we do not come at this subject from a position of bigotry, but of genuine concern for people, relationships, families, employees, homosexual persons and frankly, anyone living and working in the United Kingdom as well as for the institution of marriage.
The Big Issue
Anyone who reads this blog or who is familiar with the Catholic response to the issue of 'same-sex marriage' will understand the many points on which Catholics object to the redefinition of marriage. First and foremost, our understanding of marriage is that it is a natural institution which precedes the State and the Church which finds its origin and meaning in the union of man and woman, to the exclusion of all other forms of union. For the State to redefine it, even for motivations which it deems to be worthy, is for the State to extend itself beyond its legitimate remit over human affairs. The purpose of marriage is this union of man and woman for their mutual benefit and happiness and so that by this loving union of two people, their sexual union may bring forth children in a loving home to form a family. This is for the good not just of the couple themselves, but for human society. Marriage and the family serves what the Church understands as the 'common good'. You are likely only here, indeed, because of at least one, or not both of these institutions: marriage and the family - thus these institutions can't be that bad.
Caroline Lucas warmly greeted this small delegation of parishioners of St Mary Magdalen Church, among whom was an 11 week old baby (that's 9 months + 11 weeks). The mother of this beautiful baby, Caroline Farrow was able to hold her little child while explaining to Caroline Lucas the many reasons why this same-sex proposal was not in the common good. In what was a 20 minute surgery, the group were able to present to Caroline Lucas our view on what 'gay marriage' could mean for those who disagree with it, religious or not, when or if it comes into force as legislation. We explained that we had already seen cases in which those in the public sphere had been punished for not accepting homosexual unions as such and especially those who voice their dissent over 'gay marriage' and that were this proposal to be passed, the consequences for those who disagree would be bound to be severe. This would be the case for those who work as teachers, chaplains, registrars as well as those parents who felt that an education in homosexuality and the union of two persons of the same-sex was not in their child's best interests.
Among our delgation was more than one person of a homosexual orientation and therefore we were able to present to Caroline Lucas the truth that while human relationships and human sexuality can indeed be 'diverse' that in the Church, at least, homosexuals are not blamed for the condition, but find forgiveness and hope. One of the delegation pointed out that 'same-sex marriage' would also have consequences for the standing of civil partnerships, which were legislated for, ostensibly, to bring legal rights to homosexuals and lesbians. The so-called 'upgrade', presumably, makes that legislation, which was feared to be the foot in the door for marriage it clearly was, to be redundant.
We also discussed the consequences for the established Church of England and that the cases that could be brought against the Church in future would inevitably lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England. Whatever one thinks of that, it is hardly the kind of event that should take place as a side effect of legislation which has nothing to do with it. Overall, I think, we were able to communicate effectively to Caroline Lucas that what appears at first to be something concerned with 'marriage equality' leads inexorably to a range of secondary consequences which will damage the institution of marriage, as all marriages become simply 'parties to a marriage' (how many?) and husbands and wives, mothers and fathers are airbrushed from reams of Government legislation that exists now and will have to be created in the future. Most of these points of contention, I believe, have been covered on this blog and in the many resources online which set out the Church's deep opposition to 'same-sex marriage'.
The Response
So, what was Caroline Lucas's response? Well, Caroline Lucas seemed appreciative, as I say, of our honesty, our compassion for homosexuals, our pleasant and well-mannered approach to discussion and seemed to appreciate our contributions. While she certainly said that we had given her much to 'think about', she also made it clear that we know 'where she stands on the matter', but that she would give the issue more thought. The point at which she was most interested, perhaps not surprisingly as a politician, was when Caroline Farrow mentioned the ComRes poll suggesting that 70% of the British public are against the proposal to redefine marriage. Caroline Lucas had not seen this poll. 'Please could you send it to me...' was her response.
At one point, however, Caroline Lucas, in defending the proposal and examining our opposition, suggested that there exist many heterosexual couples who marry but who decide not to have children. What, for instance, do we think as Catholics of artificial birth control which can separate the unitive act of lovemaking from its procreative purpose? We suggested that while it is the case that because such tools for the regulation of fertility exist, that there is nothing particularly 'green' about pumping yourself full of chemicals which are then released into the water supply. In fact, different people responded to that question in different ways to counter Caroline Lucas's argument in defence of 'gay marriage'. Seeing a flaw in the birth control argument, in terms of demographic catastrophe of the Western World, I went on the offensive. 'The Church was right', I maintained, 'to warn the West of the contraceptive culture' because our birth rate in the West is now something like 1.8.
Indeed, what was most revealing about Caroline Lucas's personal beliefs was her response to my assertion that the Church had been proved right over artificial birth control because of the declining and unsustainably low birth rate in the West. Her response?
"But the population a huge problem and we're destroying the planet!"
And, sorrowfully, therein lies the huge clash of beliefs now taking place between the Church and the secular World. Summarised in Caroline Lucas's response is the heart of the creed of a Green agenda which sees the human race as a problem or indeed a solution only in as much as man's place in the World exists in order to serve and preserve the environment at all costs.
This means, in fact, that policies which serve the common good of humanity are incrementally replaced by policies which serve the good of 'the Earth'. In that statement, we see that what the Church is confronting here, is not a mere set of beliefs of secularists who consider population to be an 'important issue', but a religion built around the conservation of 'Mother Earth'. What we're seeing is the deification of the Earth and the reclassification of human beings, its inhabitants, as an essentially problematic part of Earth's landscape.
This means that on a range of issues, be it abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual and lesbian marriage, perhaps euthanasia and assisted suicide, while someone who signs up to a 'Green policy' may indeed recognise, in all these things, something that is intrinsically inhuman, that this intrinsic wrong and the various consequences that flow from this intrinsic wrong for humanity and societies as a whole are worth it not for even the 'greater good of humanity' but for the greater good of the Earth. This moral relativism is given ideological power because even if it is at times objectively detrimental to the common good, its evil is over-ridden by the good it does for the Earth in terms of the lesser number of humans exploiting or harming this planet.
'Gay marriage' serves the Green agenda
In what I think could be called a new Earth religion, which binds people together in as much as they assent to it, we human beings are called upon to accept grave injustices to human society as a whole in order to 'save the Earth'.
It does not take a genius philosopher or a great prophet to see that such a view on man's place in the World is a recipe for all manner of evils and that the inherent logic of the 'green' philosophy leads to the acceptance of a greater role of the State in human affairs, perhaps totalitarianism and even human sacrifice in order to appease a planet that views us as parasitic beings destroying its beauty and ecology. This is ecological utilitarianism.
This is why, I believe, Caroline Lucas is able to hold together the acceptance of various aspects of 'same-sex marriage' or abortion, or perhaps even euthanasia, as having potentially negative consequences for individual human persons, while also holding the view that despite the many potential or actual negative consequences, they are worth it, because the detriment to individuals, families, institutions and even freedom itself are worth it in order to preserve and protect Mother Earth. I would confidently assert that what the Church is dealing with in the 'same-sex marriage' debate is a host of men and women whose beliefs, while essentially anti-human, are anti-human for different reasons, one of which is, in the case of Caroline Lucas MP, on a par with religion. That religion is, essentially, the neo-paganism of the New Age.
During the surgery, I pointed out to Caroline that many British laws based on Christianity were being eroded, overturned and replaced with new laws which did not serve the 'common good' and that at the heart of the Christian vision of a society was this idea of the common good, a good served by the promotion of marriage and the family and of respect for the sanctity of human life. It did not, then, occur to me, why while Caroline Lucas can see the attraction of policies that serve the common good, that their replacement by the British State with laws which did not serve this good could be more appealing than those which did. In order to understand why Caroline Lucas should believe this, we need to understand the 'new age' spirituality for which Brighton and Hove is an obvious contender for a 'New Age City of the Year Award'.
The New Age
Like the paganism of our Angle forefathers, the neo-paganism of the new age holds aloft creation to be worshipped or at least venerated to a level that is excessive. Essentially, we are dealing here with a philosophy which crowns the Earth, nature and the environment with those attributes that belong to its Creator from Whom all goodness and virtue flow.
In this model of belief, man works in harmony with the Earth and in doing so achieves some kind of balance and personal liberation. However, if man is exploiting or 'raping' the Earth and using it to his own selfish ends, by consuming, then this brings about misfortune and spells man's ultimate doom. The New Age philosophy of preserving Mother Earth does not come without a sense of sin or at least guilt, since any number of ecological crimes, such as not sorting your recycling from your domestic waste, filling your kettle too much, having a bath instead of a shower, leaving your lights on while out at work or not using 'energy saving light bulbs' are in the Green philosophy, seriously grave deeds.
Yet none of these sins can be matched by the mortal sin of excessive human reproduction, because, you see, the problem with the environment is us, even while we are an integral part of the whole ecology. If only we were eradicated, or lessened to a small number, our impact on the Earth would be minimised and Mother Earth would be happy, yielding forth an abundance of organic fruit and vegetables to feed the animals and the 500 million inhabitants of the Earth that are left once we've depopulated 2/3 of the World. Then Mother would be happy. Oh yes. Worried yet? No? Well, you should be.
The Church's Response to the New Age
The Catholic Church's response to the New Age beliefs is one of prudence. Yes, it is true, says the Church, that men and women are 'stewards' of the Earth and should be responsible with its resources. However, stewardship of the Earth does not mean the creation of a philosophy which holds man to be in any way a parasitic or subordinate creature to the Earth or any kind of 'cancer' upon it. No. Believe it or not, while the Earth is 'good', man's creation is 'very good' despite our fallen, often selfish behaviour. All human life is sacred in a way in which the lives of the other creatures are not since man is made in God's image and likeness. By adoption of Baptism, man's relationship with his Creator is restored in Christ, by whose blood we are redeemed. And what Christ is by nature, we become by adoption. And it matters not to the value of human life whether a man is baptised, or not. Baptism affects man's salvation and raises him to glory, but all persons are endowed with a unique dignity as human persons. All human life is instrinsically sacred at the moment of conception to death, infinitely valuable and precious in the sight of God. God is the Father of all mankind.
The Church also holds as inherently heretical and dangerous any attribution to the Earth and the environment those powers and virtues that belong to the Creator. Anyone who is familiar with the psalms will realise that while it is a gift to man to delight in the wonders of God's creation, God's creation, including man, was made to praise and lavish worship upon the Creator of all things.
The video above shows the Office being sung by monks. Well, you can hear them anyway. The lyrics for the Laudate Dominum are, briefly...
'Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise him in the heights. Praise him, all his angels: praise him all his hosts. Praise him sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars and light. Praise him, O ye heaven of heavens: and let all the waters that are above the heavens, praise the name of the Lord. For he spake, and they were made: he commanded and they were created. He hath established them for ever, even for ever and ever: he hath made a decree, and it will not pass away...'
It goes on to ask fire, hail, snow, mountains, hills, trees and cattle, birds and other animals and, of course, people and angels to give praise and worship to God because in God do all things, including us, find our fulfilment, meaning and purpose.
This view of Creation is set as a total dichotomy to that posited by new age and 'Gaia theory' enthusiasts who believe that we owe a debt of gratitude and service not to the Creator but to the Earth itself. The ultimate goal of the Church's vision of man is holiness and sanctity leading to salvation. The ultimate goal of the new age vision of man is the preservation of the natural world by living in harmony with it, serving it and even praising it.
The Church's vision of man is messianic in as much as God became man in order to redeem him and take him to where He now lives. The new age vision of man is messianic in as much as man can redeem himself through a combined community effort that 'saves the planet'. The Church's vision of God is one of a loving Father, whose Justice is appeased by the saving work of the Redeemer which brings man into friendship with God. The new age vision of God denies Him entirely and places creation into the centre of human activity - caring for an Earth that will react angrily and with justice if we do not work alongside her in living sound, ecologically balanced lives. The Church's vision of man is one of abundance - to 'go forth and multiply' - to be fruitful - something that is naturally human, set in contrast to a new age attitude towards new life that sees fertility and childbirth as obstacles to be overcome for the sake of the planet. The new age vision of man is to sacrifice human beings in order for the Earth to repay us with her gratitude and an abundance of harvest. In no way does homosexuality or same-sex marriage threaten this kind of inhuman dogma.
St Francis of Assisi, we can be sure, saw the Earth not so much as Mother but as sister or brother, praising God with him. His canticles, incorporating such characters as'Brother Sun, Sister Moon' served to remind the Church and the World that all of nature, the Earth, lives and breathes in as much as God gave it life, abundant life, in order to praise Him. He doubtless believed that, despite his personal holiness, all other creatures under Heaven praised his Creator better that he - even those creatures not made in God's image and likeness.
The Green movement does not present the Church with a new problem. It presents the Church with an old problem in new clothes. Plenty of people around St Francis's time were falling back into pagan superstition. It is easy, too, to see why, to the Green Party and new age proponents, abortion, same-sex marriage and the host of elements in the 'culture of death' are supportable despite the harm these things do to human beings, families and society, because all of these things, yes, same-sex marriage too, serve to reduce the human population, in order to please and serve Mother Earth. In fact, the goal of preserving Mother Earth is so very attractive to what is a global, well-funded environmental movement with UN approval, that it would be no surprise to me if over the years and decades to come, these things could become mandatory on an international scale, because, as the Church will tell you from experience, whenever there is a new religion with a particular creed, you will always have dissenters and heretics. Thankfully, we can rely on the new age enthusiasts and the Green movement to show mercy to the heretics, as this promotional video for the campaign 10:10 to reduce carbon emissions nicely shows us.
Worried yet? Ah, I'm sure they're only joking. Incredibly, these guys have actually been going around campaigning in Brighton schools. Try getting pro-lifers into Brighton schools and see the reaction! Seriously, though, this is no laughing matter. Here is why.
UN Agenda 21
As we know, the population movement, morphing neatly with the Green movement is an incredibly powerful force in the Western world. The United Nations Population Fund was funded and founded by incredibly rich men who, eugenic in outlook, believed in Malthusian predictions that human resources would run out in the last century. Among those who have invested heavily in the UN Population Fund and who have their very own Population Council in the US are the Rockefeller dynasty, among other multi-billionaires, who happen to be one of the richest families on the planet. Not heard of it? Well, that's not surprising, because nobody involved with it in the Green movement wants you to read it. Here's Glenn Beck explaining it. Take it away Glenn.
You may not have heard of Agenda 21, but I think Caroline Lucas has. Sadly, despite a mutually respectful dialogue, I have to acknowledge that there will be little chance of Caroline Lucas changing her opinion or voting intentions should this proposal come to the House of Commons. At the heart of the Green MP's agenda is Agenda 21: the program for the enslavement of the West under a communistic global regime masking its real vision of an inhuman, brutal and dictatorial totalitarian State that will stop at nothing - nothing - to achieve its objectives, first locally until going global, with an excessively romantic, inordinate love for the environment. Anyone - anyone - working actively and knowingly towards the implementation of the horrifically anti-democratic and dystopian Agenda 21 is not working for you, but the very rich and powerful of this World to the detriment of the human population.
Sadly, to Caroline Lucas and to the incredibly rich sociopaths running the international Green cartel, human life, human families, human institutions and ultimately human beings in the womb are a small prices to pay, like Eric Hobsbawm believed, in the building of the utopian dream - an heretical nightmare - of man and woman working with man and woman in total harmony with Mother Earth, sacrificing even children to do it, but, at emnity with God, reaping eventually as he and she have sown. And what a terrible harvest that will be, when the only sacrifice that won for man his redemption, his salvation - his entrance into the Heavenly City - was that of Our Lord Jesus Christ offering a loving relationship with the Eternal Father, rather than a coercive relationship with the State.
Say a prayer for Caroline Lucas and pray for all legislators to God and His Mother, our Mother and Queen, crowned in Glory, whose Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Looks like that's 'gay marriage' and abortion covered then...
Well, tomorrow I meet Caroline Lucas MP to discuss for 20 minutes the issue of 'same-sex marriage'. Pray for me and the small contingent who I am hoping to meet outside The Media Centre, Brighton at 4pm to present the case against to someone most definitely pro.
If you can, come. If you can't, pray for us and pray for the lady herself. That reminds me, I really should ask her a question about that Green Councillor who was shown the door for not signing up to the marriage that is not.
Word on the street, or rather, in The Argus, is that Caroline Lucas could see her electoral situation change dramatically with the redrawing of constituency boundaries. Will this make any difference to Caroline's voting decision when it comes to it? Likely not. But as sure as we're living in a quasi-democracy, I'll be making my views along with others to Caroline on this political potato - a potato that's so hot, it might just as well have come from the lowest pits of Hell.
Matthew Parris, of relic-phobia fame, has weighed into the 'gay marriage' debate with some choice words for those opposing the proposals. Here are some quotes, one or two of which are revealing. So, let's examine them...
“I do understand people’s discomfort about the use of language. When people are told they are to use a word in a different way, it makes them uncomfortable for reasons that George Orwell chronicled so well. Marriage to someone of my generation means a man and woman, and in 20 years’ time, it won’t. To those of us caught on the cusp there’s a little adjustment needed.”
A little adjustment, indeed! To put it mildly! George Orwell did chronicle, very well, the future society that overturns the English language in order to put entirely new constructions upon the meanings or definitions of words, in order to build an entirely new vision of society. If only Mr Parris would be a bit more forthcoming with his thoughts on where all this could potentially lead. It's just a 'little adjustment', like the probable sacking of those teachers unable to cope with teaching homosexuality to children, those parents unable to allow their children to be taught it, those marriage registrars unable to preside over 'gay weddings', those Churchmen unable to bring themselves to demonstrate 'equality' and those husbands and wives who will no longer be known as such, but, instead, as gender neutral 'parties to a marriage'.
Matthew Parris searching for '1984'
Let's be frank, here. The re-ordering of marriage and its redefinition by the State is not a 'little adjustment' but instead a 'great leap forward' in terms of cultural and societal change. It isn't something that requires a little tinkering by Government and a little more tolerance by its populace. It's something that requires a transgression by the Government into something beyond its remit and the State's crushing of any dissent from its own people. Destroying and refashioning an institution is a Marxist strategy with inherently Marxist consequences. But hey, what does that matter, when seismic cultural changes led by the State are so in fashion now that you can still call yourself a 'Conservative'.
'Indeed, had David Cameron asked Parris — which he did not — whether he should support gay marriage, “I’d have said, ‘It’s a good thing to do but I wouldn’t put it at the top of your priorities’.”
Since then, Cameron’s resolve has, as Parris puts it, “brought a lot of the real nasties out of the woodwork, so the line-up is now between the forces of light and the forces of darkness”.'
Might this man be just a little prejudiced against the people who are but also those who aren't in the media spotlight, who might not agree with 'same-sex marriage'? Who are the forces of light and who are the forces of darkness? Talk about polarising debate. Can you guess who is 'good' and who is 'bad'? The 'nasties' are all religious types (especially relic hunters and those who believe in the 'Lux mundi') and people who hold onto a traditional (now millennia old) view of marriage. The good are those 'luvvies', the enlightened beings drawing us into an age in which a man can marry a man because 'it's only fair' and get that 'upgrade' he always wanted.
'Upgrade'? I hear you cry. Why, indeed! Mr Parris says that, despite the fact that he is happily civilly partnered to his chap, that when the option becomes available, he is hoping for an 'upgrade' to marriage. Could it be that this man does not have a realistic notion of what marriage is? Mr Parris, if marriage is something so special and wonderful that you desire to obtain it by the Government's irresponsible theft of the institution itself, then why does your language suggest it to be something rather cheap and unimportant - like you'd be obtaining something that would make as much difference to your life as getting a nicer seat with better leg room on a British Airways flight to one of your second, third or fourth homes?
'Parris’s long-term partner is Julian Glover, a former Guardian journalist who briefly wrote speeches for Cameron and is now a special adviser at the Department for Transport. Asked if he and Glover, who became civil partners in 2006, will avail themselves if marriage becomes an option, Parris says they will indeed “probably get an upgrade”.'
Despite the fact that Mr Parris is convinced that none of the opposition to these careless whispers from the State care about marriage, but only about persecuting homosexuals, Mr Parris makes it plain how shallow and artificial is his own view of the institution he believes will bring he and his partner the ultimate happiness that comes from the 'status' of marriage. Part of the reason for this, of course, is that the campaign for 'gay marriage' is coming from an elite who believe that status and honour is what life is all about. It must be, because having a certificate from your local Council registry office on your wall in your luxury pad overlooking a 270 degree view of the Thames and showing it to your celebrity friends with a glass of bubbly is what life's all about. Back in the real world, on 'ground zero' however, it's pretty clear that life under the 'great leap forward' looks a lot more like Orwell's vision, than it does Parris's London.
It's upgrade time!
Mr Parris. Sir. You're arguments are evidence, if any were needed, that the gay fantasy, like the fantasy that wealth and fame bring happiness, is just that. A fantasy.
If homosexuality made homosexuals happy, you'd be happy. You'd be happy with what you have and have enough good will to spare people involved in relationships of opposite genders the institution that belongs solely to their unique and complementary relationship and to the exclusion of all other kinds of relationship. If homosexuality made homosexuals happy, you'd be happy with your man and your civil partnership and find time to defend the institution of marriage against this absurd attack while you're at it. You're not, so you want government, Church and society to tell you that homosexuality makes them happy so that you'll feel more happy about it - so happy, indeed, that all will call same-sex relationships the stuff of marriage. That way, you and your partner will be 'happily' married despite the fact you're both of the same gender and cannot crown your relationship with your own biological children and despite the fact that people will only be happy because the Government has drawn smiles in permanent ink on their faces.
And in your search for personal happiness, for that 'upgrade' that a few years ago you didn't think much bothered you at all, you are perfectly willing to allow the totalitarian nightmare envisioned by a writer you rightfully admire to wreak havoc upon those many men, women, families and children operating in normal society and with whom you no longer have much contact because you're minted. You are prepared to see children receive an immoral education designed to destroy their innocence and encourage sexual experimentation, to see the enactment of legislation that will criminalise people for simply holding onto their principles in their chosen field of work and to see all opposition to your poisonous gay liberation creed in the United Kingdom overturned and extinguished overnight, despite being a 'Conservative'. In your hatred of those you deem to be 'nasties', you're happy to see, yes, even homosexuals (because I and many homosexuals who are not famous don't believe the 'gay marriage' propaganda) punished for not accepting the 'cultural revolution'.
The reality of gay liberation is that it comes at a price. That price is the freedom of all - a price far greater, I believe, than the cost of an 'upgrade' and of infinitely greater worth. Mr Parris believes it would really be a terrible 'betrayal' if Mr Cameron dropped this 'gay marriage' proposal. He doesn't go onto say of whom it would be a betrayal. The people of the United Kingdom? Himself? The established Church? Libertarians? The gay community? Perhaps, Mr Parris treats all these groups as if they were the same thing, but remember it's just a 'little adjustment' that'll be well worth it in 20 years, rather like the killing of millions under Soviet rule would have been worth the 'little adjustment' in Eric Hobsbawm's eyes, had it 'all worked out well in the end.' Of Mr Cameron and his 'proposal', he says...
"I would bet a considerable sum of money on his persisting with it.”
Well, being a man with a considerable sum of money who is civilly partnered to his former speech writer, I suppose you would. Perhaps, with your winnings, should your bet be successful, you can fund lawyers for those Christians and other 'nasties' who'll be sacrificed for your 'upgrade'. Marriage is sacred, Mr Parris. Worth preserving, too, is the freedom and liberty of the citizens of this country, but, hey, what do the 'forces of darkness' know? Come the revolution, I guess you'll still have a job, mind because if history tells us one thing, it's that only the 'forces of light' keep employment right, status, their lives and rank in revolutions. As you survey London and look down from your 270 degree view flat overlooking the Thames after that revolution, spare a thought for those who have not signed up to the State Credo and show some respect for their sacred consciences, even if, like so many, we Catholics too, you find respecting your own to be a profoundly painful challenge. We may not see you in Room 101, though you may wish to see us there. If God should be so kind as to grant us Heaven, we wish to see you there. That's how nasty we really are.
'And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.' (Gospel of St John 1:15)
In an act of unfathomably bigoted spitefulness, this 'nasty' agitator for the 'forces of darkness' will light a candle for you after the Traditional Latin Mass tomorrow night.
We must never lose sight of what a wonderful and inspiring role model Barack Obama would be, if he were not such an unpleasant abortion advocate with an anti-human, anti-life and anti-Christian agenda.
Why is everyone in the media claiming that the Jimmy Savile scandal is a total Esther Rantzen - that's slang for 'astonishing shock'?
I don't understand how this can be when one columnist and broadcaster, Milo Yiannopolous, who, incidentally, contributes to The Catholic Herald wrote this on his blog in October 2011...
'National treasure Jimmy Savile is dead. Without meaning to puncture the respectful atmosphere, given all the eulogising going on it is perhaps worth remembering that there was a dark side to this family entertainer too.
Savile, star of children’s television favourite Jim’ll Fix It, sued the Sun in 2008 over a series of articles linking him to Haut de la Garenne, the Jersey children’s home where human remains were found and children were allegedly tortured and sexually abused.
He initially denied ever visiting the home, despite photographic evidence to the contrary.
In fact, Savile had close links to managers at the home. A journalist who reported on the case told me there are gruesome revelations waiting to surface that no newspaper felt able to publish at the time, given UK libel law.
And then of course there’s Savile’s reported friendship with Gary Glitter. (A case for phone hacking if ever there was one.)
Now that Savile is dead and no longer able to issue writs, how long before people start talking?'
To those who are unaware of quite how terrible the Haut de la Garenne case was, in 2007 the human remains of loads of children were discovered on the site in an investigation into ritual and most probably satanic sexual abuse of children that could span literally decades. There, for seemingly decades, anyone who visited the children's home in Jersey seems to have had their pick of little ones who they could devour. The title of Milo's blogpost was, by the way:
By the way, I hear a lot about this 90% figure that Sir Jimmy is said to have distributed to good causes. I hate to sound 'uncharitable' but if someone gives 90% of their wealth away to 'charidee', that's all very well and good, but we're not really meant to hear of it. Our Lord told us to keep our good deeds, or at least our almsgiving, secret, so that we may be rewarded by Our Father in Heaven, who sees in secret.
To learn more about the Haut de la Garenne scandal- a scandal from which Sir Jimmy tried to distance himself despite the fact that photographs of his visit there emerged proving that he lied about his involvement with the kindergarten at the heart of a massive paedophile ring - click here. I wouldn't however, blame you if you'd rather not learn about it. It's pretty dark stuff.
What I'd like to know is: Why was one political blogger and columnist (and broadcaster) making noises about the Savile scandal in October 2011, but everyone else, seemingly, in the media, keeping mum?
It's almost like a national state secret that gets hushed up for 50 years and then gets decommissioned and released to a generation later on. Well, what with the BBC, the NHS and media luvvies involved in the cover-up of Savile's crimes against children, I guess that a State secret is exactly what it was.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging Sir Jimmy (may God have mercy on his soul) nor casting doubt on Mr Oddie's genuine shock of the crimes of the late jewellery rattling, cigar-smoking sex pest. I'm just wondering why only one columnist and blogger told his colleagues to hold back on the eulogising for the moment because Mr Savile was a dark horse implicated in Haut de la Garenne, but the whole media kept on eulogising even though it was, in the BBC and the World of celebrity, apparently an 'open secret' that Mr Savile was up to no good?
I guess journalists just don't talk to each other nowadays. Not even journalists who contribute to the same publications.
When I was at university, I can tell you that Hobsbawm was a key reference for history students. I know because I lived with one. I myself bought a copy of Hobsbawm's 'Age of Extremes' and loved it.
He certainly was a good writer and his breadth of knowledge of the history of the twentieth century was scintillating.
None of us, as politics or history students, ever knew that Hobsbawm's views were as extreme as the century of which he wrote.
Nobody told me that Hobsbawm defended the murderous ideology of communism to the point to which he believed that millions of deaths would be 'worth it' if the new age of utopian brotherhood and sisterhood of communism would have succeeded.
There really does seem to be a moral blindspot for those on the left of the political spectrum to see the terrible errors of those who have placed their Marxist cities on a hill for the World to see.
Just about the best analysis of Hobsbawm I have seen thus far has come from a Telegraph writer who tries to understand why it is that, despite its huge death toll, the left refuse to see or to acknowledge the evil produced by its own adherents down the last century.
I'm working on the video footage I took of the Rosary Crusade. Here's a treat from the journey back.
With the sun setting in the West, the train heading South and the darkness descending upon the East, suddenly, from the East, came this resplendent rainbow.
What a stunner! Even better on full view...
“The rainbow is a symbol of the peace and reconciliation which the blessed Virgin, our Mediatrix, effected between God and man.” ~ St Anthony of Padua
Jason and I managed to catch the 12:19 to London Victoria and as soon as we got on the train a parishioner of St Mary Magdalen named Ann stopped us and asked us to sit with her. At times Jason and I slipped into the next carriage where things were a bit quieter and Jason spent about half an hour entertaining a small baby in a pram with a fluffy bunny toy. The little baby was very giggly while Jason entertained her.
Jason spent time explaining to the mother and friend that he had the night before won second prize in a singing competition at a pub on Grand Parade. I'd seen Jason the evening before the Rosary Crusade and invited him along. When he heard about it he decided he wanted to give the flowers to Our Lady. Here he is with his flowers...
So, Jason and I, with Ann, arrived at Westminster Cathedral and upon arriving, the Lord was being exposed upon the Altar as prayers of reparation were made. The Blessed Sacrament was then processed down the aisle and around the Church. Having venerated the Lord, we went outside where the throng of crusaders were gathering for the Rosary Crusade. He, I and Ann walked praying the Rosary along the way and when we arrived at the Cathedral, Jason was able, after more prayers of reparation were made, and hymns were sung, to give Our Lady his roses. The walk itself was full of prayer and songs to Our Lady. Here is Jason and Ann on the walk. Not a great quality pic but it was in motion.
On the way back we saw the beautiful rainbow the Lord graced us with which seemed to unite the railway carriage in gasps of awe. I must say I've never seen a rainbow quite so stunning in my life. So strong, so full of colour and life. It was as if Heaven was crowning our prayerful day with a gift from above. There's some more rainbow footage at the end of the rosary crusade film for those who like rainbows. That'll be all of us, then, right?
To some people, the rainbow is an optical and meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection of light in water droplets in the Earth's atmosphere, resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc. Thanks, Wikipedia!
To some, the rainbow is a singular sign of God's grace, peace and mercy to men as well as a vision of hope.
The first group understand what a rainbow is and why it is there in a restrictive sense. Light travels through water droplets making a colourful arc, etc. etc...yawn...
The second group understand what a rainbow is and why it is there. While appreciating the scientific knowledge of rainbow formation, these believe that God made the rainbow to look beautiful. It is. It glorifies Him and causes men to praise the Creator. The first group think the second group is nuts. The second group think the first are sad. But both groups say, 'Oh look, what a beautiful rainbow!' Both groups acknowledge the rainbow's existence and its beauty, while one group acknowledges its Creator.
So, we have a universal appreciation for beauty. Find me a man who says, 'Rainbows! I can't stand rainbows! I detest the rainbow! In France, do they say, 'Je detest l'arc-en-ciel!'? If there is something universally beautiful, then not only is there something the religious and non-religious can agree on, at last, but we have found that such a thing called beauty objectively exists or is. It isn't just 'in the eye of the beholder'. It's what St Thomas Aquinas would call some kind of a law, I guess. Second, we see that therefore objectivity exists too. Some appreciation for beauty which is universal hardwired into our being. Nobody detests rainbows. Everybody loves rainbows. Therefore it is a universally accepted 'beautiful thing', objectively speaking.
But here's the thing. Does the rainbow actually exist? If it is light passing through water in a fashion that creates multiple colour, two people looking at it can see it. Yes, you can see it, but can you touch it? Is it an actual thing of substance? What you see, I mean? Can I catch it? Can I slide down it? Can I take it home? Can I track it down? If you are in an airplane can you pass through it? As Karen Carpenter sang, I guess that there's 'no getting over' it. It only exists, perhaps because we see it. It only exists because we are and we are here on Earth. It's not like a tree, or a flower, or even like the sky which is always there.
All can see it, but it is merely light passing through water that creates an effect, an illusion - yet it does not deceive. It doesnotexist substantively, yet, it does exist because for a while it is. We see that it exists not substantively because it fades and quite fast. Or does the rainbow exist at all? What exists, what is testable, is light and water. The rainbow, perhaps, does not exist objectively, as other things do, though you and I and the Lord above may all see it. It is not a 'thing'. It exists only by sight! The sun definitely exists, so does water and rain, but the rainbow? We're talking a different catergory here in terms of 'Creation'. This is merely the show of light passing through water. It is an effect as a result of a cause - light reflecting through water droplets in the atmosphere. It has no substance.
So, now we see that not only does beauty exist, as an objective reality, in itself, discernible by all men, but that all men believe in something that does not actually objectively exist and for which they have no scientific evidence, since the effect of colours generated by light reflecting in water is just something seen by eyewitnesses. Should we believe them, when men talk of rainbows? The blind man has never seen one. Why should he believe? Could it be that the World has been lying of it? To the blind man, could it be a myth? A sky fairy story? For us, too, is this real? Substantively, empirically real? Or is it just an optical illusion? The colours appear to exist, but they do not exist. What is colour? They merely appear. These colours have no substance whatsoever, neither can you run tests on the colour. Yet the hardest empiricists maintain that rainbows not only exist, but are beautiful too!
Well, we religious types have no problem with that. We acknowledge the rainbow anyway and praise God for it. And we acknowledge that the same Lord that made the rainbow to give glory to Him and cheer to men not only exists, though 'empirical evidence' is wanting, but He is Beauty Itself! To the atheist, of course, no amount of evidence is enough. Those who believe, however, could say, and rightly so, 'Behold! The rainbow!'
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, 'Rainbows leave me cold. I'm bored of them now. First time I saw one was good. Second, sure....By the thousandth rainbow, well, I got tired of rainbows. They're a bit like London, really.' Well, that's my argument blown then...but have you ever noticed that the Lord doesn't send them every day, or even every week, or even every month? Maybe the rainbow is always there and just appears at the moments when the atmosphere is 'just right' in terms of light and water?
How many eyewitnesses were there recorded in the Gospel to the Resurrection, again? Many of these eyewitnesses died for their belief. I forget how many...
We see, then, that when we look upon the Rainbow, that we look upon something that appears to us to exist, but, substantively, does not. It appears as a sign illuminated by a mixture of light and water in the sky. Yet, few can deny, none can deny that the rainbow IS, at least while it appears to men.
It IS a rainbow. Yet, we see that to believe it requires a certain amount of faith, since we've no data on the substance of colour or 'God's palette'. Light and water exist, but the rainbow appears intermittently as a sign in the sky. All believe it is a rainbow because that is what we see, but there is no empirical evidence of it save the views of eyewitnesses down the ages and at present and in ages to come.
The gift of faith has led men to see God in everything and everyone. They have no need of evidence and the testimony of the Apostles leaves them believing in the Resurrection to which they attested. Faith is nourished by prayer and the sacraments.
Behold, the rainbow and He through Whom it was made!
Who nourishes us? Jesus Himself. For, in the Holy Eucharist, we can see God, Our Lord, by faith. But, as sure as the rainbow is present in the sky, God truly IS present in the Holy Eucharist, whether our faith is strong or weak, as sure as the rainbow is present in the sky. The Holy Eucharist however, has substance, a substance which is changed from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by the uttering of the words of consecration by a Catholic priest. Behold, how light and water is transformed by God's decree to the radiance of a rainbow, so bread and wine is transformed by God's decree to the Body and Blood of the Lord!
The rainbow is not present in the sky by faith, even though scientists cannot pin it down and examine it and test it. Yet it is by faith that we recognise the rainbow to be what it is. Jesus is not present in the Holy Eucharist by faith, but it may require faith for us to believe it is the Lord. Like the rainbow the Lord appears to us and disappears from sight, into our souls, feeding us with His Body, Soul, Humanity and Divinity. Men of great faith have exclaimed upon seeing the Holy Eucharist, 'Dominus est! It is the Lord!' as quickly as they have pointed out a rainbow to a friend. I ask you, who are the 'empiricists' to tell them they are wrong, especially when scientists have probed the heart tissue of the Lord in labs in the wake of a Eucharistic miracle like that of Laciano.
'I thought we were expected to believe in Him on faith alone. If He's now doling out evidence, why is He only doing it for a few coma patients and heart-attack victims? Why not simply write "Heaven is real and I exist" in light-year-long golden letters across the night sky? It's not as though the advance viewing of heaven can have been an administrative mistake ("Oh, sorry – I've got you down for July 2038. Choking on pick-'n'-mix at the Holloway Odeon. Back down you go"); God is, after all, omniscient, and presumably therefore beyond our earthly Outlook Calendar foul-ups.'
Behold, Thomas, the rainbow! And, what is more, He through Whom all things, including the rainbow, were made! I can see a rainbow...see a rainbow...see a rainbow, too! It makes believers of us all.
Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino: laudate et superexatate eum in secula!
