Human Rights Commissar Says Christians Must Shut Up

Human Rights Commissar says Christians must obey State law when it contradicts our Faith. What he doesn't realise is that Acts of Parliament are not "the Law" when they contradict the Law, which comes from God. e.g. an Act of Parliament may consider it (in modern parlance) "lawful" to murder a baby, to allow sodomy in public, for widespread euthanasia, or to have blasphemy and foul language on TV; but such an Act of Parliament goes against Objective Truth and as the Law is rooted in Christianity it cannot be turned on its head by the misinterpretations of politicians.

To put it simply, murder cannot be made "lawful" just because politicians vote it so anymore than if they vote left is right or right is left.

That's my penny's worth anyway.

How interesting that his comments were reported by The Tablet, who seem to wish to follow Acts of Parliament rather than the Law of God upon which all binding and legitimate Law of the land is based.

Vote now at the Telegraph site:

'Christians Must Choose...'

Profits at Any Cost?

I wonder why, watching this evening's news, the modern world always insists on a constantly growing economy. We seem to be told at every turn that a modern economy must have growth, and that low growth (say 1%) is all but failure.

Why? Is it because of inflation? Because growth lower than inflation means stagnation? Or is it because Capitalism relies on growing economies to service the debts so much of the economy relies on?

If someone out there intelligent enough to follow all this, and explain it in layman's terms, would be kind enough to explain it I'd be grateful.

As a businessman, if I ran a business that made 100K profit one year and then made another 90K profit the following year, why should that be deemed a failure? I don't understand why we have the constant need for growth, for greater profits, year on year.

As a Catholic I have to wonder if it's better to crave for growth every year, to seek bigger and bigger profits at any cost, when we as a society should surely place prime importance on economic and spiritual well being, safe streets, the stability of families, the condition of the poor.

I know it can sound a bit woolly and I don't go in for hugging trees, but aren't all the above more important than the constant chase after bigger and better profits?

Would we be happier with less profits, but being able to leave our doors unlocked? I've seen in parts of London, homes worth £1 million plus, all shuttered up, with bars on the windows. Is that progress?

Rich prisoners?

It always makes me think of Britain in the industrial revolution. To a few historians and many politicians, those days are painted as wonderful times, the 'good old days' of British Greatness, with the Imperial might of Britain spreading, and engineering feats to take one's breath away. Yet where were the people back then? Forced off the land? Living in slums?

I wonder sometimes if the love of money, aka the relentless charge after more profits, brings about more societal evils? Our Lord said it was the root of all evil -- are we to call Him a liar? Yet the love of money (bigger and bigger profits) seems to be the driving force of Capitalism.

After all, if an energy company can make greater profits by putting up its prices as the elderly face the choice to "eat or heat" through the Winter, how can they condemn a poor kid who chooses the relative wealth and peer group adulation of getting involved in selling drugs over hard slog in school ending in a McJob? OK, I am using an extreme example as one is 'lawful' whereas the other causes untold misery and crime, but you get the point. Immorality breeds immorality. Greed breeds greed.

If we rush to make money, more profits, then greater profits than before -- at every twist and turn -- what time is left for morality, for the moral choices that may mean making less money, to take a slump in profits for the betterment of the Common Good?

It reminds me of a 'joke' an Irish Catholic friend of mine told me. A geezer in his late 20s works part time, but makes ends meet. Nothing fancy. Pays the bills. Spends time with his kids, takes them swimming, fishing, playing football etc. Then his mate comes along and says 'come work for me.' He tells him it's 12 hours a day, six days a week. But if he works real hard with this better wage he can retire when he's 50. His main selling point was that when he was 50 he could then "go fishing, swimming, playing football..." 

Discuss.

Terry Pratchett's Assisted Suicide Argument is Fatally Flawed

On tonight's BBC News at Six, Terry Pratchett asked how we would possibly get from people "choosing to die" to people getting killed by the state.

I'm sorry but he is not a thick, unintelligent man. I have read and enjoyed most of his books, and he is clearly quick witted.

Can't he see the day that old people are pressurised by lazy, greedy, hard-pressed or "busy" relatives to sign a piece of paper so they can be injected with a lethal concoction? We already see "DNR" on old people's clipboards in hospital. A relative of mine was infuriated to see it on hers -- Do Not Resuscitate. The NHS is already looking out to save money and/or clear beds.

In a world where money means all, do we think the NHS would care for elderly people for years when they could "humanely" dispatch them?

Does Terry Pratchett not see the precedent of abortion? Initially this was supposed to have safeguards. It would only be when the mothers' lives were in danger. There would be safeguards with doctors' signatures required. Oh - and sex education and contraception (and even lately the morning after pill) would lower the number of abortions.

Only none of this worked, and the number of abortions has grown and grown. Now people who think they are "too poor" kill their child just as quickly as people with "careers" or even those who want to kill their child because they want a new car or have a holiday planned. We even see the same people give "advice," provide the murder machinery, and profit from the abortions. It's become a big business with media-savvy mouthpieces ready to promote their agenda and protect their profits.

Just as the "safety net" of unemployment benefit has become instead a lifestyle choice for what have been called the generation of "Shameless" families (named after a notorious TV series) and those who have no intention of working (a newspaper report today said half or dole recipients would give up their payments rather than be forced to work); so abortion has become a "lifestyle choice" for hundreds of thousands rather than the supposed 'safety net' for pregnancies that threatened a few dozen mother's lives each year. And I speak as someone whose mother was told by the "experts" to abort me for that very reason, happily we both survived.

If Terry Pratchett is indeed an intelligent man, then he must know that assisted suicide, no matter what the claimed safeguards, however it is entered in law, will undoubtedly change once enacted. Over a relative few years the dozens will become hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands and so on. The selfish generation who have holidays planned will pressurise the old to sign for their death, as quickly as they would seek an abortion.

The "inconvenience" of pregnancy and childbirth will be joined by the "inconvenience" of old age and caring/visiting the elderly. Plus there will be the 'added bonus' of early inheritance for the greedy, corrupt or desperate.

There are none so blind as those who will not see, and I do appreciate the onset of an irreversible disease must induce truly terrifying emotions; however we cannot change the law of the land and open the door on all sorts of awful eventualities just because a few selfish people wish to end their own lives.

That is not looking out for the Common Good. I do not wish to see a society in which the millions killed by abortion, for all manner of dubious, twisted or even 'good' intentions (and we know where they lead) are joined by millions killed by lethal injection.

I would ask Terry Pratchett to think again. He may not see the logical consequences of his actions, but we weren't told legalising abortion would end up like it has with millions dead. Opening the door to assisted suicide for a few vocal people with access to the media, would be a disaster for this society.

Famous Welsh Catholic #3: Dr Saunders Lewis

Saunders Lewis

There is an oft-used saying that Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Some people take this to mean that being patriotic (or being a patriot) typifies a man as a scoundrel. I do not believe this is the case in either respect, in fact or in regards to the meaning of the saying. Patriots as a whole tend to be decent enough types within the confines of their human nature (as patriotism tends to butter no parsnips) and the aforementioned non-patriotic scoundrels tend to run for cover in patriotic ranks when the proverbial hits the fan.


You will rarely find, for example, in the ranks of day-to-day patriots, the like of the London City banker or the Marxist provocateur. For the former, patriotism restricts profits and if he can make more money by sacking English workers and using sweat-shop labour, he will. Money is his god, and wherever he can make a profit is (temporarily!) his homeland -- to be defecated upon when he can make better profits elswehere. It is only when his operating base in the City of London faces a new tax, that he may become an uber-patriot, defending his "rights" to use tax-havens etc.

For the latter, the Marxian commissar, patriotism is, like God, to be attacked at every opportunity, both being "opiates of the people" - until they feel pressurised and under assault, then they will use the cloaks of patriotism (and even Christianity): as they did in WW2-era USSR. Marxists can seldom be trusted, again to give WW2 as an example, prior to 1941 it was a "capitalist war" and some Trade Unionists even organised go-slows or work to rules (so were seen as "anti-patriotic"). After 1941, of course, it became a 'war against fascism' and they urged an all-out effort (and so became "uber-patriots"). All this was exposed by the former high-ranking Marxist, Douglas Hyde, who converted to Catholicism and exposed Marxist hypocrisy in is autobiography entitled I Believed.

The Church herself teaches that patriotism is normal, we are creatures of our soil, via nature and nurture, and the Just War theory demands that should our homeland be invaded, for example, we are justified in defending it from the oppressor (a Catholic tenet that gives rights to the Afghan tribesman that the US GI in Afghanistan does not seemingly enjoy).

In Wales, Nationalism came of age through the teachings of Dr Saunders Lewis, one of the co-founders of Plaid Cymru, whose February 1962 radio talk entitled the Fate of the Language gave rise to the Welsh Language Society, which in turn made Welsh a growing rather than a dying language by 2011.

In a recent sermon in our own humble parish, Bishop emeritus Daniel Mullins gave the example of Dr Saunders Lewis as one of the greatest post-WW2 European Catholic thinkers. Saunders Lewis taught Bishop Mullins to read and speak Welsh when he was his parishioner in Penarth, a beautiful church I had reason to visit quite recently for a relative's wedding.

In his booklet The Principles of Nationalism, Dr Saunders Lewis outlines nationalism as a Catholic would understand it. He salutes the nationalism of nations like Wales within the (Holy?) Roman Empire, and outlines how nationalism isn't about borders, barbed wire, invasions or xenophobia. he extols what is, in essence, a Catholic vision of nationalism: to celebrate one's nation,one's culture, one's heritage, one's history etc. within the bedrock of Christendom.

I have few of the qualities of Saunders Lewis (apart from our shared Faith and nationality) and so I doubt I can do his writings justice, but this is what patriotism should be. A perfectly natural celebration of shared values, heritage and culture within a wider shared history and culture that is Christian. Within a truly Catholic Europe the various nationalities would be free to celebrate their nationhood, within a shared common value system, one far above and beyond the false, sterile, death-culture, control-freakery of the current European Union.

Patriotism is as natural as wanting to own one's home, seeking to protect one's family, and wanting to live in a crime-free and safe society (all perfectly Catholic values). What worries me is when the scoundrels out there who normally pooh-pooh patriotism (and Catholicism!) as something "backwards" or "medieval" scramble to wave their little plastic flags and pound the jingoistic flag.

Sometimes this is to drum up support for a highly questionable war (which we've seen more than enough of lately); sometimes it is to defend greed and profits by the few (e.g. defending the "rights" of the City of London), and sometimes it is even to defend the liberal anti-family relativistic (anti-) values of the UK when they are questioned (for example by the Pope).

So patriotism, when it becomes the lifeblood of the people, as a means to celebrate culture, values, language and the Common Good is perfectly natural, perfectly Catholic and should be seen as normal and healthy for the national body as breathing is for the actual body.

But beware when you see scoundrels running to grab a flag and embrace patriotism - because then you know they are up to no good.

Nationalism when it is natural, normal and respectful is thoroughly Catholic, as long as it acts within the laws of Holy Mother Church (no unjust wars, not against the Common Good, not acting against the state in society of the working classes etc. etc.).

It is when "nationalism" becomes jingoistic, aggressive and anti-Catholic in nature that it is to be avoided at all costs. Sadly for all too long in the UK we have been drip-fed a worship of the state, the monarchy and the state religion (with the monarch at the top) as the be all and end all, and this 'religion of the state' goes against the universal nature of Catholicism, for it is not under the umbrella of Christ's Church, hence its chaotic, greedy, relativist nature as it votes for what is right - from abortion to women vicaresses - without the fatherly guidance of the Popes and Tradition)

It is in being part of the universality of Holy Mother Church, with the care of souls within ones boundaries and in neighbouring nations too, that nations truly come into the fulfilment of their God-given right of being.

As for those who pooh-pooh the idea of nationhood, what else do they envision? A 'brotherhood of man' like the limp-wristed John Lennon tune 'Imagine'? Well sad for them (and Lennon) Heaven and Hell do exist, and so do nations. Besides which, we all know that the ideal of universal suffrage and the brotherhood of man all too often end in universal suffering and the brotherhood of the gulag.

At Fatima the three children were visited by the Guardian Angel of Portugal. Here we ourselves have our very own Patron Saint - Dewi Sant. Holy Mother Church has given our nation a patron Saint, surely Heaven itself has given us a Guardian Angel? Who are we, in our venal pride, to say that we know better than Heaven and its Church to pooh-pooh the very idea of nationhood?

Rather it is our duty in this life to ensure that nationhood is subservient to Catholicism, so that patriotism can flourish as something beautiful and natural, within the bedrock of Christendom (a dream that Saunders Lewis clung to).

Enthroning Christ the King as the ruler of a Welsh nation would surely bring us enhanced recognition throughout the world, and bring many Graces to a land that (if current political events in Scotland progress) could see itself with more national powers than it has enjoyed since its Medieval Princes asked the Popes for recognition of its parliament and universities.

So may I humbly ask the Welsh Bishops to think ahead and enthrone Christ the King - perhaps at some carefully chosen site - as the supernatural and social King of Wales?

What an example to set all the nations of Europe and the world! What Graces for our small nation! What recognition for us, and imagine those who would clamour for the same beautiful ceremony to be made in Spain, Poland, Brazil, Italy, Mexico, France, Croatia, Ireland, Argentina, The Gabon, The Philippines... and so on!

Saunders Lewis

So your Lordships - over to you.

In memory of the greatest Welsh Catholic theorist, writer and activist in the 20th Century, Dr Saunders Lewis. To give a path for a resurgent Wales to follow. To remind our countrymen of the rights of Christ the King in an age of moral relativism, chaos and lawlessness as seen in the riots last Summer just across the border.

Let us embrace a Catholic future for Wales, so that patriotism can again be as natural and normal as breathing, set in the universal bedrock that Holy Mother Church provides to all nations.

Goodbye and Good Riddance to the News of the World

The News of the World is going. I wish it was that easy - the decision came like a North Korean diktat, and is a power-play to secure Sky for news International. Furthermore NoTW will be replaced by another Murdoch Sunday paper.

Left: Do our children know more about Saints or drug-taking celebrities? Which will help them attain their place in Heaven?

It is more akin to shuffling samples from an STD clinic than getting to grips with the immorality and amorality which causes the spread of STDs in the first place.

I use that example pointedly for in many (most?) respects the NoTW is like a STD. It is (was!) a newspaper of the lowest common denominator, full of sleaze and gossip. The few people (two off the top of my head) who I know who have bought it always looked embarrassed when I asked them "why?" and replied: "it's for the sport/football."

Not good enough. The success of the NoTW and The Sun during the week, shows that we are indeed "Broken Britain."

If we are really preoccupied with salacious gossip, pictures of semi-naked women, soap plot lines and similar, then, it would seem, there is little hope for us. We deserve what we get. I can only think that many Rosaries, Novenas and Masses offered against the waterfall of sin is keeping God's wrath from us.

Those who said, this week, that they would now be boycotting the gutter rag (purchasing or advertising) should be asked what they were doing supporting such a disgusting title. And I do not think the Sunday People (the Mirror's Sunday title) is much better.

We really must re-evaluate our actions as a society.

An edited example of the NoTW sleaze

Should we really be surprised that tabloid hacks behaved in such an underhand and disgusting manner? When their output has been, for many years, highly questionable and an affront to the Faith and morals of "the remnant."

Catholics should be made aware that the tabloid media goes against everything that Catholicism stands for. Like the good people of Liverpool in dealing with Murdoch's Sun paper, we should let every single Catholic in the land know that the tabloids must be boycotted.

How else can we expect our children to be good Catholics and role models for the next generation if their parents, aunties/uncles, grandparents etc. have copies of papers lying around that push a totally anti-Catholic worldview and (im)morality?

I recall reading a few years back (and I would dearly love to be corrected - please!) that Rupert Murdoch was given a medal by the Vatican. If this is true, it shows how the "bosses" of our Church have twisted their role and (as a friend used to enjoy saying at every opportunity) "lost the plot."

Rupert Murdoch must hold the ultimate responsibility for a media empire that has spread a weltanschauung of disruptive anti-family soft porn; of money buys loyalty and gossip; of spreading tittle tattle, semi-truths and lies; of promoting an anti-Catholic agenda on so many levels.

We Catholics are the sheep guided by the Princes of the Church, who should set the example so that we can all (in our faltering Via Dolorosa, in this Vale of Tears) attain Sainthood.

"Newspapers" such as (but not solely) the News of the World have been a roadblock for many souls on that road. Now is the time for Catholic Bishops to speak out and help us pew Catholics by providing us the ammunition to fight back against a gutter mentality, promoted by Rupert Murdoch and other media barons.

Time for Catholic Action! Hurrah! Meet you at the barricades ;-)  [For humbugs looking in - that is a joke].

The Athiest Religion and its Leaps of Faith

Atheism: from self-pride to mass murder

In a conversation this morning with "the missus" on atheism, prompted by some talking head on the radio, she made the sublime intervention:

How can atheists not believe in God?

Very straight and to the point dontcha know.

This got me thinking. And as I replied to " 'er indoors," it's not so much that they don't believe in God that's amazing (though it is, in and of itself, barmy), what's truly astounding is what they do believe in.

Let me cherry pick some of the most pertinent ones (as I can see you're busy!):

• Evolution. Tell me how the atheist believes something as complex, intricate and awe-inspiring as the human eye (out of thousands of examples) "evolved" from a bit of mud. When they cannot find the "missing link" all these theories are nothing more than a Faith.
• Conflict. Atheists always say that religion causes war. Before the reformation, England, France and 'Spain' were almost always at war. Nearer to home England invaded Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All these nations were Catholic. After the Reformation we are told that religion had a role in European wars. Northern Ireland is an example. But English involvement in Ireland pre-dates the Reformation. In Europe the Flemish want to be free of Belgium/the Francophile Walloons. Both peoples are Catholic. The huge battle between the Nazis and Soviets was a clash of two atheist ideologies. Very often atheists attach a religious label to wars that are political, national etc.
• Death and misery. Extreme atheists state that religion brings misery or blind loyalty to evil or oppression (that we accept the wrong things in this world, because we are promised heaven). The Church does not of course (even if lukewarm or ignorant Catholics might) and has condemned the maltreatment of workers, espoused Social Teaching and condemned both atheistic Communism and the kind of individualist Capitalism that saw workers shoved into slums. Needless to add we can say that atheists have brought terror and mass murder ever since the French Revolution and in the 20th Century alone it was atheists that killed probably well over 100 Million people.
• Abuse. The atheists key card in latter years is the paedophile abuse by priests. This is a genuine reason for Catholics to be ashamed. However, we must remember that this was an extremely small percentage of priests. Furthermore, the change in Church outlook meant that the very liberalism and homosexuality that the atheists want the Church to embrace has in-turn led to priests with those inclinations (once banned in the Church) being accepted in: and we have witnessed the terrible results. Furthermore, the atheists overlook all the awful abuse (mental, physical and sexual) that happens in atheist (e.g. local council run) care homes which has been pretty much endemic. The atheists also overlook the huge charitable bodies run by the Church and by individual Catholics too. Short of a relative handful of abusers, the vast majority of them homosexuals (whose rights the atheists support), the Church is an agency for charity, education and good in society.
• Women's rights. Many atheists say the Church 'oppresses' women. Of course it isn't just Catholics (or "horrid men") who have problems with much of the feminist agenda and how it seeks to "divide and conquer" the sexes on behalf of militant atheist ideologies. How can a body that gives the Virgin Mary such an esteemed role be accused of being anti-women? The whole idea is preposterous! The key "wymmin's right" is of course abortion. They fail to see the irony that 50% of the killed babies are female! So the feminists promote the mass murder of girls as well as boys. Furthermore, all their excuses (often a mask to abort so people can afford a second car or their annual holiday) smack of the greed they claim to oppose. How can one claim to want to end poverty by killing the poor? One may as well claim to want to 'clean-up' London for the benefit of Londoners by dropping a nuke on the city.

There is much more of course, one thinks of the condom/homosexuality issue where the atheists have accused the Pope of being a "mass murderer" when the statistics show that Catholic countries that do not promote condoms have lower infection and death rates than those that do (abstinence and family life being 100% guarantees of safety - condemns fail regularly so spread both death and disease, especially as they promote promiscuity).

So, let us recount the leaps of faith atheists make in their daily discourse attacking our Faith:

Evolution. With no missing link or evidence.
Conflict. When wars were just as (or more!) common when all sides shared the same faith.
Death and misery. When atheism has caused many millions of deaths and untold hell-on-earth in the guise of Communism or Mammon.
Abuse. When atheist establishments are rife with it, and they promote the homosexuality that caused most of it in the Church.
Women's Rights. When atheists support the mass murder of baby girls.
Condoms. The church's teaching saves lives and prevents infection, it is the condomaniacs who kill millions.
Homosexuality. Of course its promotion has led to abuse of male minors, and the spread of AIDS, the homosexuals being perpetrators and victims of the death-cult.

The more I read on the sound, traditional teaching of the Church (as opposed to what heterodox Sister X or Father Y may preach in opposition to the Church), then the more I realise that the Church is the vehicle for Truth in all respects.

Of course the Church does not promise Heaven on earth, because it knows man's fallen nature makes that nigh on impossible.

The difference is that the Church works with man to make the best of a bad situation, in all ages, as empires, kingdoms and states come and go, having the same Truths yesterday, today and tomorrow as its foundations in all matters. Whereas the atheists sole unifying factor is hatred of Christianity, the Church, and more precisely the Roman Catholic Faith, Church and Magesterium.

The Church fights in all spheres to make the best of bad situations because of man's fallen nature; the atheists on the other hand mock the Church for offering paradise after death, as if that negates all the good work they do to make society, systems and so on better and more conformed to Christianity.

The atheists meanwhile offer heaven-on-earth, whilst all too often merely delivering hell on earth, or at the very best slavery to banks and demagogues.

You don't believe me? The millions of victims of atheistic aggression in the 20th Century scream otherwise, as would the little baby girl (if she still had her voice) pulled apart, burnt and sacrificed on the altar of Mammon in an abortion "clinic"in the last minute- pick the the time and place of the murder at your convenience.

I think it's time Catholics took the "battle" to the enemies of the Church, for they offer nothing but slavery, debauchery, and murder; no matter how "intelligent" and "charming" they make their message appear in this media age.

A land without the Grace of God quickly moves to evil (whether post-Reformation England with its dark Satanic mills, enclosed land and slum housing, or post-Revolution Russia with its collectivism and gulags).

The presence of Christ's Church and the Sacraments (especially the Blessed Sacrament) protects lands from the worst excesses of man's greed and base nature, for as long as the Faith of the people stays strong enough to protect the Church and her Sacraments.

Crime Does Pay: The Pontarddulais Example

From the Walls of Jericho to Pontarddulais

I remember reading an article several years ago written from a Protestant point of view, which stated that the Bible dealt with many societal issues, not least governance.

Included in the latter category was crime and punishment.

The author concluded (if I remember right) that circa 25-30% of the Bible was dealing with personal issues, but 70-75% of it dealt with society, government etc.

Naturally as a Catholic I found this very interesting, not least because Catholics (should!) believe in the Kingship of Christ, viz that societies should be officially Catholic, their laws be Catholic etc.

I found the article very interesting, but wondered in later years (without the original piece to reference) if he had included Old Testament laws ( I am 99% sure he did) and if so, would these kind of societal laws be made null and void by the Birth of Our Lord.

But didn't Christ Himself say:

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 

Does this mean the Old Testament (OT) laws still stand? I know Catholics still use the OT, for example, to oppose the Sodomite agenda. But on the other hand don't we chastise the Pharisees and their descendants for their rigid adherence to OT laws, even to the extent they sought the death of Christ. or was this because they had twisted the OT laws?

Anyway, forgive me for digressing. That's just me thinking aloud.

Where am I headed with this (I hear you plead).

On the local news last night there was the story of Pontarddulais Brass Band who had their instruments stolen and sold for scrap. The story was that the "head thief" went to jail.

Here's how the BBC reported it online:

Four men have been sentenced for stealing £15,000 of instruments from Pontardulais Town Band, which were sold to a scrap dealer.
Andrew Beer, 39, was jailed for 24 weeks at Swansea Crown Court. Christopher Davies, 23 and Jason Power, 36, were given suspended sentences.
Dealer Marcus Egan, 34, was given a suspended sentence for handling stolen goods.
The instruments, sold on for £61, were crushed at Egan's business.

One of the band members on the BBC last night decried how the total fines levied were £500, yet their insurance head risen to £700 p.a. because of the theft.

So let's study this:

1. Thieves steal and scrap instruments worth £15K.
2. As a result the band's insurance rises to £700 p.a.
3. The main thief gets 3 months (he'll serve circa 1 and a half months).
4. For stealing £15K's worth they are fined £500.

Doesn't something seem wrong there? The thieves (assuming they are on benefits) will pay a pittance, unnoticed for months to come, and the ringleader will get B&B for 6 weeks ate tax-payers' expense.

The only ones seriously out of pocket will be the honest brass band members who will have to pay extra insurance for years to come, leaving them hundreds (if not thousands) of pounds out of pocket, not to mention some of their original instruments may have held sentimental value and so be irreplaceable to all intents and purposes.

Now, again from memory, the article I read which dealt with The Bible and society said that:

• If items are stolen and returned the thieves must pay the victim the value of the item(s).
• If the items are stolen and not returned (eg destroyed/damaged) then the thieves must pay the victim twice* the value of the item(s).
• if the thief did not have the money, then he would be forced to work until he had earned the money to repay the victim.**

Now in a land when a thief steals a car (eg worth £3K) smashes it up, gets a smack on the wrist (often to re-offend ad infinitum), leaving the victim to claim the loss on his insurance, rarely getting the value of his car, and facing increased insurance bills for years to come, wouldn't it be a great idea to implement something like the above (Biblical or not)?

It seems to me as a Catholic, that the current state of affairs not only flies in the face of Christian values and common sense, but also natural law.

I am not (Deo Gratias!) a lawyer, and I am no expert in the laws of the land, I can only speak out on what I see, and when I see injustice am I not (are we not!) honour bound to speak out? Especially when the weak, vulnerable, and victims in society are being unjustly targeted by the justice system that should not only be protecting them in the first place, but giving them succour and (obtaining for them) remuneration after any crime.

It's easy to be populist when dealing with crime (why do bank robbers get 15 years for taking bits of paper and paedophiles get 5 years for ruining the lives of dozens), but regardless of cheap point scoring (rightful or otherwise) we must surely seek the implementation of a justice system that is intrinsically fair and just, with victims and criminals.

I have long thought that at the moment we have a system that uses a sledgehammer to crack a nut (intrusive laws, Orwellian tactics etc. against the innocent majority) yet when criminals are eventually caught, as in the Pontarddulais Brass Band case discussed herein, they are not given sufficient reprimand to make them reassess their lives and realise the harm they have done.

We owe it to the victims of crime to make the criminal justice system fair, correct and just; inasmuch as we it to the criminals to make the criminal justice system fair, correct and just.

I believe the only way to make it so for the victims to make sure the thieves et al recompense the victims; just as to make it so for the perpetrators is to make the jails places where they can get an education and become rehabilitated.

At the moment the criminal justice system fails on both counts, leaving victims worse off and leaving criminals in a cycle of crime.

I would be interested in knowing what other Catholics think, as well as examples of Biblical laws or the teaching of the Magisterium of the Church on victims and criminals.

I apologise for the rambling nature of this piece, but I am thinking aloud on this matter and searching for answers...


* This may have been 1.5 times the value of the item(s)
** I think it may have mentioned selling his property to pay, but that may be wishful thinking on my part.

Link:
Scrap Dealer Crushes Brass Band's Instruments

Costume Drama & The Common Good

Building a new Catholic society for the Common Good?

Lots of people enjoy a costume drama. I suppose with so much bad language, crudity, anti-family messages and meaningless Eastenders-style shouting, many people are eager for a little more culture, history and genuine dialogue, however flawed it may be.

Thus it was I thought I'd look in on ITV's latest offering, Downton Abbey.

The setting will be familiar to anyone who knows Upstairs Downstairs, with a smattering of Lark Rise to Candleford.

It was the name of the series that caught my eye, and prompted an impromptu history lesson to my children.

I think spin has been around for a long time. It's a sad thing, but when most people tend to be conservative (with a small c) and traditional in their beliefs, it's often a small minority that push for radical change and 'new ways' that people feel uncomfortable with.

In modern times we can think of the war in Iraq, that so many people thought was wrong, yet spin and a few people with the levers of power pushed a whole nation into an unjust war.

In history we think of course of the Reformation. In Henry VIII's day even after he invented the Anglican church most people still went to Mass, believed in the Actual Presence of Our Lord, believed in the seven Sacraments and so on (realistically thinking Henry's changes would be a passing fad).

It was after years of spin and propaganda that the English and Welsh were gradually turned against Catholicism, and even then a brave minority - the recusants - held out despite incredible anti-Catholic penal laws.

So what has this got to do with a costume drama on ITV?

Well the very name Downton Abbey had me telling my children how at the time the Reformation would have been sold to 'the people' as the greedy, rich monks sitting on so much land and property - and how it would all be taken off them to the benefit of 'the people,' so how could they oppose it?

Just as Communism would later be sold on a promise of freeing 'the people' whilst everything was grabbed by the Party few and the people were put into worse slavery, so the Reformation was sold to 'the people' in terms of 'freedom' only for the land and property to be grabbed by a rich few and the people put into a worse slavery, culminating in the factories and slums as more land was enclosed.

As I told my children, the monasteries were open to the people, they gave succour to travellers and the ill. People went there for their spiritual needs. They helped the local economy by hiring workers and selling goods. They often let their tenants live on the land and/or farm the land for little more than peppercorn rents (I believe it was Cobbett who showed how the rents increased once the monasteries were shut).

In short what was open land, accessible to many, farmed by many, to the sustenance of many, became the enclosed lands for the play and profit of a very few.

The promise of 'freedom' and of closing the corrupt (sic) monasteries for the benefit of the people was a lie, just like the promises of freedom under Communism was a lie, just like the promises of a 'War on Terror' for freedom was a lie.

One might even say that the Abortion Act (1967) was also passed on a promise of a very few in urgent medical need etc. only for the floodgates to be opened and abortion on demand for the flimsiest reasons was the result.


Spin is nothing new. We as Catholics know that we have been lied to for many centuries from the closing of the monasteries, to the enclosing of the land, to the slums and factories and the false hope offered by the Communists, to the proponents of abortion today.

Only Catholicism has the answers, a return to sound morality, a putting the family and the Common Good first and as the Papal encyclicals have said, the atheism and materialism of Communism, the love of money and greed of unfettered Capitalism offer no real hope for people searching for the Truth and justice.

And all that from an ITV costume drama! Must be another Sunday evening in our house ;-)