Vatican 2
Democracy

Vatican says UK is "better in than out" of the EU

 

“The Vatican wants Britain to stay in the European Union, the Pope’s foreign secretary has declared.” So writes the Telegraph, noting that Archbishop Paul Gallagher, Secretary for Relations with States within the Holy See, suggested Brexit could weaken Europe. “We would see it as being something that is not going to make a stronger Europe,” he said.

So, for the Church of Rome, staying in the EU is the lesser evil, or (as the Archbishop prefers) staying in the EU is the better good, which is pretty much the position of the Church of England, though no Anglican archbishop has stated it quite so baldly.

“The Holy See respects the ultimate decision of the British people – that’s for the British electorate to decide,” said the Vatican’s Foreign Secretary, which is kind of him, but when the Barque of St Peter decrees that UK membership of the EU is the greater virtue, it is not unreasonable to observe the subtle inculcation of the faithful to vote ‘Stay’: the ‘Leave’ campaign is clearly supping with the Devil.

With the “substantial six-figure sum” donated by Goldman Sachs to the ‘Britain Stronger In Europe’ campaign (which is chaired by the former Marks & Spencer boss Lord Rose), we see corporatism and Catholicism bolstering the British Establishment against democracy, transparency and accountability. The people’s heretical fivers and tenners will be hard-pressed to compete with the orthodox multi-millions gifted by corporates, apportioned by Brussels or appropriated by the Government for propaganda to persuade us to stay. Our trade, jobs, wealth, borders, welfare and national security all depend upon our membership of the EU, don’t you know.

In what sense is the UK “better in than out”? If it’s along the lines of Lord Deben’s sketchy analysis – “So we stop working with our neighbours; finding common ground; influencing for good – not my idea of Christian” – it is a crass caricature of a post-Brexit Britain and a post-EU Europe. One does not need to be subject to an anti-democratic, unaccountable, unintelligible, bureaucratic oligarchy in order to work with our neighbours, find common ground or influence for good. The Vatican seems to manage all three perfectly well without itself being a member a member of the EU.

While there are those who insist that the Holy Roman Empire can help inspire a different European Union, we can do better than look to the example of Charlemagne. “Power was always multiple and plural. The management of daily life was devolved to more local powers,” writes Oxford historian Professor Peter Wilson, as though the Empire were the epitome of subsidiarity, unforced brotherhood and elective fraternity. Try selling that notion to the 4,500 Saxons who were massacred in Verden, Lower Saxony, in the year 782. Charlemagne’s Reich was built on bloodshed, ethnic cleansing and horrific war crimes. He was the Hitler of his day, but history is marvellous eraser of wrongs and redactor of truth.

The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church customarily issue guidance at election time, but one wishes they would respect the democratic intellect of British Roman Catholics. Man-made government is a necessary evil for the ordering of society, and, in the absence of the reigning King of Kings, it is for each Christian to discern the lesser evil. “How we vote is ultimately a matter of personal conscience,” said Bishop Noel Treanor, Bishop of Down & Connor, in his 2014 ‘Pastoral Reflection‘ on the run-up to elections to the European Parliament.  The Christian task, he says, is “to influence the values that will shape future public policy”, observing that we are “called to inform our conscience”, which means “weighing up the position of each candidate and political party in the forthcoming elections and deciding how, in exercising our Christian responsibility to vote, we can maximise the common good”.

Of course, in issuing his guidance, Bishop Noel is mindful of Roman Catholic Social Teaching, centred around the right to life; the uniqueness of marriage between a woman and man; the promotion of justice, social inclusion and concern for the poor; and the pursuit of peace and reconciliation. Archbishop Paul Gallagher will have the same ‘goods’ in mind.

And therein lies the tension, for the political entity that is the European Union may promote peace, mutual understanding and reconciliation, and yet, in the pursuit of justice and equality, it negates the right to life and nullifies the God-ordained institution of marriage.

Bishop Noel is of the view that the European Union “is a noble and historic project”. “It is vital,” he says, “that we participate in the European elections to ensure the EU and its institutions continue to evolve democratically in the face of the massive political, social, economic and ethical challenges it is now facing.”

And therein lies the starkest ignorance of the EU project, for a community which was designed to subvert sovereignty and supersede suffrage cannot “evolve democratically”. As Bishop Noel Treanor and Archbishop Paul Gallagher unite against secessionists, the Vatican sets its face against the nation state, for therein lies the malevolence of nationalism. If you scratch most elites in Europe, you would find beneath their skin the terror of descent back into war. The EU is seen as a means, perhaps the means, to secure peace among the nations by deliberately submerging (‘pooling’) sovereignty. The world, they aver, must move beyond the myopic insularity of nations to progress.

And so, for the princes of the Roman Catholic Church, the EU is a profoundly Catholic construct which true Christians must support. Those who want to leave lack discernment. For the nonconformist dissenter and heretic, the EU is intrinsically anti-Christian (a debate which has been been had time and again). The Bishop ends his reflection:

As Christians, who by our national citizenship are also citizens of the European Union, we enjoy both the great freedom and the great responsibility of participating conscientiously in the democratic process and voting in the forthcoming elections. We have the freedom and responsibility to make the decision about who to vote for in accordance with a well-formed conscience, before God. It is also important that we commend and encourage all those who take up the noble vocation of politics and who, with a true spirit of public service, work with integrity and commitment for the common good.

It follows that, with a well-formed conscience, before God, Christians ought not to vote for Eurosceptics or to leave the EU. Or, rather, Roman Catholics ought not to vote Ukip, for these bishops are not presuming to issue guidance to Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists or Christadelphians (who tend not to vote for anybody). And in this anti-Ukip, anti-Eurosceptic, anti-Leave.EU exhortation, the Bishop and Archbishop join with their fraternal Roman Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, which also cautions against voting for anti-EU forces.

In consideration of Christian citizenship – which is, of course, in heaven – we are exhorted to eagerly await our Saviour, who, by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body (Phil 3:20f). In the meantime, those lowly bodies have to get on with the tedious process of being citizens in a foreign land, and that entails engagement with (and praying for) those foreign princes and potentates who rule over us, for they are authorities instituted by God (Rom 13: 1-7).

But it is curious, is it not, that the political objectives of the party which talks most openly of Christian values and of our Christian heritage; and which seeks to defend the synonymy of the institution of marriage with the sacrament of Holy Matrimony; and which happens to believe that the EU is far more likely to foment civil unrest with its oligarchical imposition of economic governance and the negation of democracy, should be singled out by the oligarchical Roman Catholic bishops as the one to abjure. The EU is a Godless, atheistic and fundamentally anti-Christian institution masquerading as an enlightened and inclusive commonwealth: it owes more to Robespierre than to Rome. Perhaps, instead of preaching that the UK is “better in than out” of the EU, the Vatican would be better out of than in our referendum.

  • Inspector General

    Do remember that even for British Roman Catholics, Cranmer, the Vatican is a long way away. Not just in terms of physical distance, old chap.

  • The Explorer

    I’ve had a staying-in leaflet through my letter box: the first from either side in the debate. It says that half our trade is with Europe. The implication is that if we leave the EU, Europe will somehow cease to exist. Europe will still be there. Whether or not the EU will be there is another issue, but Europe and the EU are not the same thing; although the pretence is that they are. If our trade were to suffer from non-membership is also another matter, and that is a legitimate concern.

    I’m inclined to think that Britain’s decision to stay in or leave will not determine the survival of the EU. I suspect it will be determined by what Germany does to itself. We could stay in, and the EU might still collapse.

    • Anton

      Open borders and the Euro currency are both doomed on a timescale of a few years. Those are the core of the EU project; there will soon be nothing left of it with or without Britain, so let’s get out now and escape collateral damage from the collapse.

  • Slack Alice

    I don’t think His Grace need worry that the UK Catholics will meekly follow any perceived instruction by the Vatican. I can understand that this is different for certain other faiths who rely on leaders to tell them what to think. But Catholics will give it reflection and decide for themselves. There will be no fiery sermons at Mass and no newsletters urging people to vote a certain way.
    What is being missed here is how far ahead the Vatican is thinking and how insightful Catholuc leaders are. They know that within a generation or two there will be another world war. They are just trying to stem the tide. For which they should be applauded.

  • Irene’s Daughter

    Of course the Pope wants the UK to stay in. He is so close to reclaiming Mary’s Dowry and an out vote would push it further away. And the Vatican doesn’t need to be an EU member. It already has the loyalty of all those Catholic politicians who will do as he demands by decree. And remember, the reason that the succession to the Crown has precluded Roman Catholics is that loyalty to the Pope has always been inculcated to be above national loyalties for the Catholic flock. Sad that these things have been forgotten.

    • Oh please … Catholic voters and Catholic politicians have been ignoring the Church for at least 2 generations. Consider contraception, abortion and same sex marriage. You really believe they blindly follow the Pope?

      • carl jacobs

        But you believe they should follow the Pope. Your examples are all examples of disobedience.

        • In matters of faith and morals, most certainly. When it comes to specific policies about promoting the social teachings of the Church, one should listen, consider the principles involved and then make up one’s own mind.

          • carl jacobs

            So … the quest to end war among the nations isn’t a matter of morals?

          • Of course it is but achieving it – like social justice – is a matter of prudential judgement. It’s not for the Magisterium to declare a doctrinal position on this.

          • carl jacobs

            OK then. So there are moral matters and then there are moral matters. I understand perfectly.

          • There are moral mattes where God’s will is made plain through revelation, reason and Natural Law. Then there is the temporal order where man has to aim at achieving peace and justice as best he can.

          • carl jacobs

            I’ll remember this when next we argue about the applicability of the Sermon on the Mount to the actions of the state. “Prudential judgment” you said. Got it.

          • Indeed …

  • len

    The EU was born out of deception and the desire to control and manipulate the masses(no pun intended) and not altogether surprising that the Church of Rome wants in on this……

  • IanCad

    Powerful stuff YG. Powerful.

    Well, I must say it yet again; Referenda should have no part in our representative system of government. We should not be in this pickle. The wretches who sold the soul of our country to a foreign power deserve to hang.

    That the leaders of this land signed a document – Catholic at its roots, tyrannical in potential, and conformist in its aims – is evidence that in history there are no lessons to be learned.

    Rome is on the march. Behind the scenes it rules, even in the United States. One day, one day, it will have no need to lurk in the shadows. It will emerge with the vigour, the zeal, and the power that was hers, once long ago.

    • Lol ……………

    • Cressida de Nova

      Woohoo!!!!

      • “Rome is on the march. Behind the scenes it rules, even in the United States. One day, one day, it will have no need to lurk in the shadows. It will emerge with the vigour, the zeal, and the power that was hers once long ago.”

        Happy Jack may have to borrow and polish up an old retired bird’s armour and sword and get ready to join in the march when the call comes from the Vatican. It is reported to be stored in his shed.

        • carl jacobs

          Captain of the Vatican Lancers: So, Private Bird. We think the enemy is occupying one of the buildings on the town square. Walk into the square and see if you can spot anyone.

          Private Bird: Squawk! [Clankity clatter trod trod clatter trod]

          Sergeant:

          Captain: Don’t look at me like that. He wants a chance to be useful.

        • Cressida de Nova

          I’ll march with old dinosaur bird….Count me in !

    • carl jacobs

      Gracious. The black helicopters are Roman!

      • IanCad

        Come off it Carl. Black helicopters, New world Order, 911 an inside job – all hogwash.
        However when the Pope addresses the US Congress – that body sworn to uphold a constitution which declares that freedom of religion is the bedrock of the document – when the Supreme Court has not one Protestant on its bench; When the President himself welcomes this head of the sustainability movement. Then will you still tell me that Rome has not influence over your land?

        • carl jacobs

          I’m speechless.

      • It’s a Catholic-Jewish-Masonic-Islamic plot.

        • carl jacobs

          You forgot the Knights Templar and the Illuminati.

          • Tsk … they have been subsumed into the Masons.

        • Hi

          Up in the mountains of the Swiss alps, as the world eilte, like Leonardo DiCaprio, and the Canadian prime minister, meet in davros, we are all just victims of the Jesuit/Papist/Zionist /Bolshevik /extra terrestrial /bilderberger conspiracy …..

  • Roman Catholics are at liberty to vote as they decide over the EU. Certainly, they should carefully weigh the arguments but it’s up to them to exercise prudential judgement.

  • The Explorer

    The staying-in leaflet I received said leaving the EU would have no effect on immigration levels. Switzerland and Norway are subject to free movement and both have high immigration. So it seems that the only thing that might affect immigration is the actual collapse of the EU and the re-assertion of national identities.

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      Switzerland and Norway each have trade surpluses with the EU, so to have full access to the EU customs union (which it is rather than a free-trade area) they have to accept certain conditions. These include free movement, paying money to the EU and implementing some EU laws.

      The UK has a substantial trade deficit with the EU and is a significantly bigger economy than Switzerland and Norway combined. Hence the UK is in the position to strike a substantially better deal than either Switzerland and Norway.

      • The Explorer

        Thank you. That clarifies.

  • a community which was designed to subvert sovereignty

    One section of a book published in 1945 is headed ‘The Need to Curtail National Sovereignty’. The authors write: ‘Practically all the plans and planners agree on one fundamental—that the economic interdependence of all nations and the need for world peace make obsolete the traditional concept of unlimited national sovereignty…Most plans for a stable post-war international order assume that national sovereignty will have to be curtailed in both domestic and foreign relations.’

    The people surrender the right to govern themselves but, in recompense, they become part of a ‘world order’ which ‘recalls the prophetic ideal of world brotherhood.’ [page 85] The same page has praise for big government—‘It is commonly believed that the larger the political and economic unit, the better’—and for ‘multi-national states’, what we now call multiculturalism. Page 88 anticipates that multi-national states will need thought crime legislation to outlaw ‘prejudice against national, racial, or religious groups.’ RIP ‘freedom of expression’.

    Do all this and ‘a democratic Europe’ will rise from the ashes. [page 89] Well, having prophesied modern day Europe to a T, the book can be forgiven a touch of hyperbole.

  • Uncle Brian

    Time for a second Act of Supremacy, Your Grace? There’s a lot to be said for reminding people, from time to time, that the English crown shall enjoy “all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and commodities,” though I confess I’m a bit hazy about the commodities.

  • Just the personal opinion of one archbishop, and not on a doctrinal matter, and so it will be ignored by most catholics. I believe that some Anglican bishops have also expressed opinions.

    • carl jacobs

      “Rome has spoken, the matter is finished”

      • All Archbishop Gallagher said was: “We respect the ultimate decision of the British people, that’s for the British electorate to decide. We would see it as not something that would make a stronger Europe. Better in than out.”

        Hardly Rome speaking with infallibility, is it?

        • carl jacobs

          Heh. This is so much fun.

          • Pest … Be off with you. You’re acquiring unattractive ‘Bobisms’.

          • carl jacobs

            Now that’s a low blow.

      • Philip

        I note that ecclesiam tweets “I self-identify as a pig”. [The blogger’s words not mine]. I appreciate honesty.
        It is true that the comments of the hierarchy are “ignored by most Catholics” on contraception etc., but on the EU they will note the Pope’s opinions carefully.

        • CliveM

          “but on the EU they will note the Pope’s opinions carefully.”

          Why on Europe, but not contraception?

    • Philip

      It might help if some Catholic blogger started mocking the archbishop and finding funny pictures of him. Tweet it about ecclesiam and Bob’s your uncle.

    • Philip

      No it will not be ignored ecclesiam, however much it is satirised and mocked by attention-seeking egoistic bloggers.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    I do not wish to tax my brain too much on a Sunday, but the question of Europe is crying out for this quote from Chesterton:

    It is obvious that there is a great deal of difference between being international and being cosmopolitan. All good men are international. Nearly all bad men are cosmopolitan. If we are to be international we must be national. And it is largely because those who call themselves the friends of peace have not dwelt sufficiently on this distinction that they do not impress the bulk of any of the nations to which they belong. International peace means a peace between nations, not a peace after the destruction of nations, like the Buddhist peace after the destruction of personality. The golden age of the good European is like the heaven of the Christian: it is a place where people will love each other; not like the heaven of the Hindu, a place where they will be each other.

    That’s the particularly relevant bit. The paragraph continues:

    And in the case of national character this can be seen in a curious way. It will generally be found, I think, that the more a man really appreciates and admires the soul of another people the less he will attempt to imitate it; he will be conscious that there is something in it too deep and too unmanageable to imitate. The Englishman who has a fancy for France will try to be French; the Englishman who admires France will remain obstinately English. This is to be particularly noticed in the case of our relations with the French, because it is one of the outstanding peculiarities of the French that their vices are all on the surface, and their extraordinary virtues concealed. One might almost say that their vices are the flower of their virtues.

    All Things Considered, 1908

  • Martin

    Well done Rome, yet another reason to leave. Those who wanted us in back when we first voted had the same tactics as those who want us to stay in, lies and scare tactics.

    • Concerning the Brexit referendum, Archbishop Gallagher said: “We respect the ultimate decision of the British people, that’s for the British electorate to decide. We would see it as not something that would make a stronger Europe. Better in than out.”

      Hardly “lies (and) scare tactics.”

      • Martin

        HJ

        Actually it sounds just like that to me. But then Rome have used lies & scare tactics for thousands of years.

  • Raphael Hythlodeu

    I think it is impostant to remeber that Pope Francis defended democracy within the EU in his speech for the European Parliament:

    “The motto of the European Union is United in Diversity. Unity, however, does not mean uniformity of political, economic and cultural life, or ways of thinking. Indeed, all authentic unity draws from the rich diversities which make it up: in this sense it is like a family, which is all the more united when each of its members is free to be fully himself or herself. I consider Europe as a family of peoples who will sense the closeness of the institutions of the Union when these latter are able wisely to combine the desired ideal of unity with the diversity proper to each people, cherishing particular traditions, acknowledging its past history and its roots, liberated from so many manipulations and phobias. Affirming the centrality of the human person means, above all, allowing all to express freely their individuality and their creativity, both as individuals and as peoples.

    At the same time, the specific features of each one represent an authentic richness to the degree that they are placed at the service of all. The proper configuration of the European Union must always be respected, based as it is on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, so that mutual assistance can prevail and progress can be made on the basis of mutual trust.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament, within this dynamic of unity and particularity, yours is the responsibility of keeping democracy alive for the peoples of Europe. It is no secret that a conception of unity seen as uniformity strikes at the vitality of the democratic system, weakening the rich, fruitful and constructive interplay of organizations and political parties. This leads to the risk of living in a world of ideas, of mere words, of images, of sophistry… and to end up confusing the reality of democracy with a new political nominalism. Keeping democracy alive in Europe requires avoiding the many globalizing tendencies to dilute reality: namely, angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems lacking kindness, and intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom[10].

    Keeping democracies alive is a challenge in the present historic moment. The true strength of our democracies – understood as expressions of the political will of the people – must not be allowed to collapse under the pressure of multinational interests which are not universal, which weaken them and turn them into uniform systems of economic power at the service of unseen empires. This is one of the challenges which history sets before you today.”
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/11/25/pope-franciss-address-to-the-european-parliament-in-full/

    The only way that I see to achieve this objective is through the Flexcit plan of Dr. Richard North ( eureferendum.com ; leavehq.com ):

    “e end game of our plan is in fact the abolition of the EU’s Single Market as we know it, and its replacement with a genuine Europe-wide single market administered by the UNECE based in Geneva.

    This was Churchill’s original plan in 1948 and one that is taking shape as UNECE gradually takes more and more responsibility from the EU on regulating the single market. With the WTO Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade also increasing its grip, it is only a matter of time before the bulk of the Single Market acquis is agreed at global or regional level.”
    http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85888

  • Inspector General

    For all those who are undecided about the issue, and for whom this archbishop’s message may be influential, Vote Out. Vote Out while you can still vote out. It is surely the case that the time will come when the option to leave no longer applies. Our treacherous politicians will arrange that on being asked.

    VOTE OUT and renegotiate trade agreements. Without the political union lies and deceit. If the Chinese can do that with Iran, of all countries, we can do ours blindfolded if necessary. Let the EU drift away and watch it sink from a distance. And damn good riddance to them…

    • bluedog

      Well said, Inspector. The EU is a monstrous regiment indeed. Fortunately the EU’s systemic weaknesses in all the aspects of statehood ensure that it generates unending negative publicity for itself. Thus the longer Cameron allows for the EU funded Stay propaganda campaign to take effect, the greater the prospect of fresh, unmanageable, calamity. The Germans are a great help in this regard, and their current proposal to evict plucky little Greece from the Big Brother House of the Schengen areas seems guaranteed to trigger a fresh chain of unintended consequences.

      To those communicants speculating on the provenance of the Shroud of Turin, this communicant recommends a renewed search for the True Cross. Discovery of same would prove to be an economic bonanza, as has always been the case.

      • Anton

        Isn’t the problem not that the True Cross is lost but that there are too many of them?

  • preacher

    ” The E.U IS a Godless, atheistic & fundamentally anti-Christian institution masquerading as an enlightened & inclusive commonwealth. ”
    We were duped into joining it by the lies of Edward Heath & we have witnessed the results for too long to be able to plead ignorance of it’s deceitful aims & ambitions.
    Is it possible that the Lord has allowed the threat of the ‘ Migrant ‘ crisis at this time to expose the ” Feet of Iron & Clay ” of this Monolith ?.
    The Roman Catholic community must decide for itself how to vote without pressure from Rome.
    Has the Vatican a vested interest in the continued existence of the E.U ? I cannot claim to know, but it’s interesting to note that the E.U Rag, – Sorry ! Flag was apparently inspired by an iconic image of the Virgin Mary.
    Please remember when voting in the referendum, that The Lord Jesus is the Only Shepherd of the Sheep not, the Pope or any other human religious leader.
    Brains in gear before you ‘ Make your Mark ‘ on the paper friends !.

    Thank you Dr Cranmer for this excellent post !.

  • carl jacobs

    If you scratch most elites in Europe, you would find beneath their skin the terror of descent back into war. The EU is seen as a means, perhaps the means, to secure peace among the nations by deliberately submerging (‘pooling’) sovereignty. The world, they aver, must move beyond the myopic insularity of nations to progress.

    Precisely. They see in Europe an emerging order of supranational governance. The whole project has been ordained to act as Revelator to the nations. It therefore takes on a quasi-religious nature. It must be sustained at all costs. If it fails, a badly-fractured Europe will revert back to its petty nationalisms. And Europe will cease to walk before the world as a pillar of smoke and a pillar of fire.

    There is within the EU man’s eternal quest to re-build the tower of Babel. The EU seeks to dissolve the nations into one nation with one law giver and one law. But Babel was the product of idolatry as man sought to set one of his own kind over the world. Man was the law giver and man was the law. At its heart was the defiant question “What need have we of gods if we ourselves are gods?” Man seeks to build the kingdom of heaven on earth by his own right hand, and glorify himself by so doing.

    This is truly the Gospel of Europe.

    • preacher

      Interesting to note that the E.U H.Q used a portrait of the Tower of Babel as a blueprint for their building.
      Ultimate audacity or what ?.

      • carl jacobs

        Source?

        • preacher

          Hi carl The E.U Parliament Building is modelled on Brueghel’s painting depicting the tower of Babel. Look on Google & decide for yourself.

          • carl jacobs

            I can see something of a resemblance but there is quite a distance between that minimal level of correlation and causation. Unless you have some primary evidence that the architect consciously made this decision, I don’t see how a comparison of the images could possibly make the case. I would be far more likely to attribute the architecture of the EU parliament to the bankruptcy of modern architecture.

          • preacher

            Well it’s worth further research. Many intelligent people have commented on this weird structure & I have looked up the origins myself. I don’t go for Conspiracy theories, but some things correspond too closely to the original plan of the tower & the ideals of the E.U to be mere coincidence, check it out !.

          • carl jacobs

            What do you mean by “original plan for the tower”?

          • carl jacobs

            I think what is being done is exactly the opposite of what you suggest. People are seeing the spirit of Babel in the EU and are then as a result imposing Brueghel’s painting onto this (hideous) structure. That can be done as metaphor, but to suggest it was a conscious decision by the architect seems a reach. To consciously spit on that biblical image would require a much greater respect for Scripture than currently exists in Europe. I can see many differences just from a cursory examination.

          • preacher

            Allowing for the development of modern materials, the work could not exactly duplicate the original painting & of course Brueghel could only guess the design of the original. But it is a monstrosity & apparently as bad inside as it is outside. The design had to come from somewhere & some claim that the original poster for the E.U building also gave a clue to the inspiration of the design & replication of the original tower’s purpose by stating the intention that the E.U would consist of many people with one voice. Babble maybe ?.

          • carl jacobs

            What you say makes sense. But many other theories will likewise make sense. You need primary evidence. Again, I cannot see an architect caring enough about Scriptural imagery to consciously base a design upon controverting it. Scriptural knowledge is very weak and growing weaker. The imagery would be lost on most people. And fewer still would care.

            This claim seems very similar to prophetic claims that the EU had something to do with the ten horns of the beast. It gives an importance to Christianity that Christianity just doesn’t possess anymore. They don’t care enough about what we believe to pay attention to it anymore.

          • preacher

            I agree with what you say, but there are many clues that point to a spiritual basis of man replacing God, as was the original intent of the building of the Tower of Babel according to scripture. If indeed the intent is to replicate the original purpose, it would would be a sad comment on the fallen state of 21st Century man, but also an attempt at a mocking rebuke to our faith & our God as seen in Psalm 22 & the mockery of the Lord by the leaders ( Political & Religious ) at Calvary.
            Many prophetic claims are highly speculative & hard to prove one way or another. But a huge steel & glass structure that looks awful & lends itself to supporting the intentions of the original building & mirrors closely the painting by Brueghel is quite a statement that is hard to ignore, especially when one adds in the other ” Coincidences ” wouldn’t you agree ?.

          • carl jacobs

            But I don’t think the building does mirror closely the painting. I think the similarities are superficial.

          • preacher

            O.K carl, I’m not out to show that it’s a proven fact, that would be impossible as you know, but merely to sow the seed of reasonable doubt that is worthy of further investigation.
            We all must make up our own minds about certain things & that’s a positive in my book.
            Obviously, the aims & motivations of the E.U affect us & our future in a more imperative way than it will for a long time on your side of the ‘ Pond ‘, it’s been a good exchange, thank you.
            Blessings. P.

          • Little Black Censored

            Preacher, give it up. You are never going to get anywhere with this chap.

          • Little Black Censored

            Oh, heavy weather! Have you no sense of humour?

          • carl jacobs

            People evidently take this idea very seriously.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Carl is bereft of a lot of qualities that characterise the upper end of the food chain !

          • carl jacobs

            As an example, I could find similar correlations with this picture…

            https://josh320.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/2.png

    • Uncle Brian

      The EU is seen as a means, perhaps the means, to secure peace among the nations by deliberately submerging (‘pooling’) sovereignty.

      “Is seen as” is a mistake, I think. It would be more correct to say, “The EU was designed from the outset for the explicit purpose of securing peace among the nations by deliberately submerging (“pooling”) sovereignty.” And it has worked. France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Poland ― not a shot has been fired in anger between any two of those countries since 1945. That’s seventy years ago now. How far back in history would you have to go to find a seventy-year period of peace among all the nations of western Europe? The formula has been a great success.

      • len

        The EU was created under the guise of the ‘common market’ a trading organisation.This was a deception a deliberate deception.

        “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

        Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973

        • Uncle Brian

          Prime Minister Edward Heath, television broadcast on Britain’s entry into the Common Market, January 1973

          What, Len? A British prime minister going on television to tell the voters a deliberate lie? No kidding! Who’d a thunk it!

          • len

            Indeed ,keep it under your hat though.

        • Was he a Roman Catholic and part of the grand conspiracy?

          • len

            Don`t know about Heath but there were Catholics at the heart of the EU`s conception.

            NEWCASTLE, England, SEPT. 22, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The original idea of the European Union has deep roots in Catholic social teaching, according to the author of a book on Robert Schumann, one of the founders of the institution.

            Catholic historian Alan Fimister, author of “Robert Schumann: Neo-scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe,” published by Peter Lang, affirms that Schuman’s actions in 1950 to found what would later be the European Union were, to a remarkable degree, the conscious implementation of the Neo-Thomistic project of Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903).

          • Uncle Brian

            You’re forgetting a third devout Catholic who was equally influential – or even more influential – than either Schuman or Monnet in establishing what were then known as “the European Communities” and nursing them through their early years. That was Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of post-war West Germany, who was in power for an unbroken period of fourteen years, from 1949 to 1963.

            It was Adenauer’s government which signed all three treaties establishing the three original European communities, each of them having the same six member states:

            The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), Treaty of Paris, 1951

            The European Economic Community (EEC), Treaty of Rome, 1957

            The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), Euratom Treaty, 1957, jointly with the Treaty of Rome.

          • Well of course the EU was inspired by Catholic social teaching. However, Jack doesn’t believe it was ever intended to become a single super state. It started off as a trading alliance to prevent economic interests provoking future wars. It was also intended to promote a more socially just group of nations.

          • Anton

            O Yes it was! Although I don’t hold with the “Catholic conspiracy” stuff.

          • Little Black Censored

            “…there were Catholics at the heart of the EU`s conception.”
            Not surprising, when you think about it. Funnily enough, they were all Europeans too.

        • dannybhoy
          • Pubcrawler

            The Bill … does manifest some of the major consequences. It shows
            first that it is an inherent consequence of accession to the Treaty of
            Rome that this House and Parliament will lose their legislative
            supremacy. It will no longer be true that law in this country is made
            only by or with the authority of Parliament
            … The second
            consequence … is that this House loses its exclusive control—upon
            which its power and authority has been built over the centuries—over
            taxation and expenditure. In future, if we become part of the Community,
            moneys received in taxation from the citizens of this country will be
            spent otherwise than upon a vote of this House and without the
            opportunity … to debate grievance and to call for an account of the
            way in which those moneys are to be spent. For the first time for
            centuries it will be true to say that the people of this country are not
            taxed only upon the authority of the House of Commons.
            The third
            consequence which is manifest on the face of the Bill, in Clause 3 among
            other places, is that the judicial independence of this country has to
            be given up. In future, if we join the Community, the citizens of this
            country will not only be subject to laws made elsewhere but the
            applicability of those laws to them will be adjudicated upon elsewhere;
            and the law made elsewhere and the adjudication elsewhere will override
            the law which is made here and the decisions of the courts of this
            realm
            .

            Enoch Powell, speech in the Commons, Feb 1972. (my emphasis)

      • carl jacobs

        Europe hasn’t fired a shot in anger since 1945 because the major powers sat on Europe to prevent it. But then even that statement isn’t really true. There were many shots fired in anger in Yugoslavia. The post-war continent was suddenly revealed as being not so “post war” after all.

        We’ll see how long the EU lasts. It was a crippled beast from the beginning – too strong to be just a collection of states, and too weak to be a nation. It has no common foreign policy. It has no common defense policy. It has no unified people. It has no unified economic policy. And yet it makes supranational decisions. It isn’t unifying the nations. It is driving them apart.

        • Uncle Brian

          There were many shots fired in anger in Yugoslavia. The post-war continent was suddenly revealed as being not so “post war” after all.

          When Yugoslavia was in the process of breaking up into its six constituent republics, there was a lot of killing, a lot of very dirty fighting, and a lot of brutality within its borders. But only within its borders. As I said, since 1945 there has never been any fighting between any two independent European states.

          • carl jacobs

            As I said, you have made a virtue out of necessity. A European nation couldn’t have started a war if it wanted to. The biggest factor in ongoing European security is the perception of Germany that it is not under threat. That is a function of the fact that European security has en mass been outsourced to the US, and the galvanizing reality of a common enemy to the East. It is most certainly not the EU that has maintained the peace. It is NATO.

            The EU is an organization not fit for purpose until it can figure out how to credibly construct a defense policy and an economic policy that is common to all of Europe. But that would mean full Union. And that is not going to happen. Do you see Germany subsidizing Greece like West Germany subsidized East Germany? Not a chance. Do you think that Germany is going to send soldiers into the Balkans? Not a snowball’s chance. This organization cannot last.

    • Bit of hyperbole in there Carl.

      • carl jacobs

        I don’t think so, Jack. Examine the spirit behind this idea of global governance. Europe is the test case for a much broader application. How do you “submerge” the sovereignty of nations without an homogenizing ideological or cultural foundation? That is the question Europe is trying to answer. Europe is trying to create a supranational ideology that can be extended to all nations.

        But it’s failing. The nations stubbornly insist on self-preference. This is the major lesson of the Greek crisis last year. Germany still sees Europe through a German lens. All the nations of Europe see things the same way. Nothing of value is emerging, but people still cling to the dogma because they fear its collapse. What happens when the nations of Europe stop pretending, and one again nakedly assert self-interest?

        That’s why they fear Brexit. It exposes the pretense that is at the heart of the EU.

        • Nations working together as a family with common interests and cooperating at supranational levels isn’t reconstructing Babel and removing the nation state. This was the initial Catholic vision for the Common Market.

          Who is this ‘Europe’? It is certain states and corporations seeing it as being in their interests to forge a super state. The others will wake up to it as Britain has done.

          • carl jacobs

            The EU isn’t properly described as “[n]ations working together as a family with common interests and cooperating at supranational levels.” The EU isn’t a confederation. The EU isn’t a Union. The EU is something that doesn’t really have a good description. It has some aspects of sovereignty and not others. Europe is deliberately seeking to construct a new cohesive organization of nation-states that does not depend upon the internal cohesion that makes a nation state possible. That must needs be an inherently undemocratic process.

          • Agreed … Jack was referencing what he understood to be the original intentions. And as you say, there is no such thing as “Europe” as a cohesive, united body and never will be. However, we can work together and Jack is pretty sure the Vatican would be willing to act as “honest broker” and chair all future meetings.

          • carl jacobs

            there is no such thing as “Europe” as a cohesive, united body and never will be.

            But that is precisely what the cultural elites driving the EU do not accept. They assert by faith that there must be a way to successfully unite nations in a supranational entity despite different cultures, histories, languages, religions, and mutual animosities. This is why it seems to me a project to undo Babel in the name of human glory. They aren’t seeking Empire. They are seeking the abolition of national sovereignty in favor of a greater universal sovereign. What does that sound like?

  • Dreadnaught

    When the Vatican supports an ever expanding monolith like the EU there must be money in it for them; that’s the best reason to get out.

  • john in cheshire

    So, the collectivist in the Vatican wants us to remain tied to the collectivists in the EU. I can’t say that comes as a surprise.

  • len

    Politicians have betrayed all that many brave people fought for in two World wars on the side of democracy and freedom from tyranny . Freedom of speech and freedom to create our own laws and to control our own destiny were our prized possessions. Our National Sovereignty and freedom has been meekly surrendered to a small group of unelected men in Brussels who make our laws and control our freedom. This power over us was gained by deception with the intention of gaining legal governance over people who by the time they realized what had happened to them would be too late for them to reverse.

  • Anton

    Why should we heed a foreign nation’s politicians?

    Especially when they run counter to the Bible: God divided the human race by language at Babel for its own good, and I don’t see English in process of becoming the universal language of the Continent.

  • IanCad

    While the subject of the post is concerning as to whether the EU is a Catholic Construct – undoubtedly so in my view – is there not a certain provincialism in confining the debate to European issues?

    Far more significant it would seem to me, is the worldwide adulation paid to the new pontiff.

    The state visit to the USA where he was feted as a monarch and equal. His address to the United Nations and that as a Head of State.

    His encyclical “Laudato Si” – the most read of all Papal political platforms. The leadership role granted him by the climate change and sustainability interests. The numerous references in the press as to his being the real leader of the world.

    We need to be on guard.

    Pope Francis; of Assisi or Xavier?

    • carl jacobs

      Francis Jefferts Schori is seen as a Pope who can turn the RCC into a servant of Moderism. He affirms the truth of the basic progressive narrative that man reveals religion instead of religion revealing man. Of course they love him.

      • The tide is already turning and the world is growing lukewarm towards a Pontiff who appeared to offer much but finds he can’t deliver.

        • carl jacobs

          That’s the hope anyways. Will German bishops allow re-married divorcees to take communion? Will anyone stop them?

          • Probably and probably not … some have been doing it for years already. That’s how modernism spreads. Only last week a priest at the Vatican, in direct contradiction to Canon Law, offered Lutheran members the Eucharist with, it appears, the tacit approval of Pope Francis.

          • Cressida de Nova

            How disgraceful ! What do you mean tacit approval? The Pope knew and made no comment? The priest should be excommunicated immediately…Well a split may be coming sooner than later….Bring it on !

          • You should read what Mundabor has to say. What’s remarkable is the silence over this clear breach of Canon Law.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I am banned from commenting on Mundabor.LOL
            Although I agree with a lot of what he says I attempted to bring to his attention that his views could be expressed in a more tempered way, befitting the essence of Catholicism. Surprisingly it was not appreciated :)followed by posts about pitiful Pollyanna types etc and not to comment there again. He is rather over reactive to everything….and not a good spoke spokesperson for Catholicism….There is no warmth kindness of humour in him….he is simply deranged !

          • Lol …. that was about you? If only Jack had known at the time. He can be rather extreme but Jack finds him a good antidote to some of the more liberal websites he visits.

        • IanCad

          The Catholic world may indeed be doing so Jack.
          However power cares not from whence its support hails.
          The Paris Climate Change Conference effectively elevated him to the leader of the world.

          Now Jack; You are in recuperation mode and have been mighty active today. It is usually prescribed that the recovery period should be one of calm and rest. I think that is dead wrong; there is nothing like getting the heart pumping and the blood flowing to raise the metabolism and thus the healing processes.
          Keep it up!

          • Indeed and nowadays exercise and activity is recommended to those recovering from cancer treatment.

          • Hi Jack

            I think a pet is in order. Labradors love exercise and are well cool animals!

          • magnolia

            Was he fully behind the Paris conference from a position of knowledge or from being naive and ignorant, do you reckon?

          • IanCad

            It is a rare pope who doesn’t know exactly what he is doing.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Some of them are very geriatric…I don’t think they know what is going on a lot of the time. Their management team is not first rate. ..There are too many unnecessary blunders taking place.

          • Little Black Censored

            Make allowances for him. The mental effort of continually referring to himself in the third person has been too much for his brain.

      • IanCad

        Well he’s a politician and would follow what works. Isn’t the Episcopal Church in deep decline though?

        • carl jacobs

          I suppose you could refer to “Hurtling towards the ground with the aerodynamic characteristics of a brick” as steep decline.

    • dannybhoy

      The Founding Fathers of the EU
      http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm

      “Jean Omer Marie Gabriel Monnet (French: [ʒɑ̃ mɔnɛ]; 9 November 1888 – 16 March 1979) was a French political economist and diplomat. He is regarded by many as the chief architect of European unity[1] and the founding father of the European Union. He was a European executive body, as President of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community, and thus he is known as the “Father of Europe”.[2] Never elected to public office, Monnet worked behind the scenes of American and European governments as a well-connected pragmatic internationalist.[3] He was named patron of the 1980–1981 academic year at the College of Europe, in honour of his accomplishments.”

      • Uncle Brian

        Monnet, Schuman, Adenauer … please take a look at an exchange of comments between Len and me, about thirty down from this one.

  • carl jacobs

    I’m going to gloat for awhile at my success in snookering Jack and all his “Grasshopper-isms” but the RCC part of this essay is a bit overblown. Rome may prefer the EU but its a stretch to see in this preference a greater RC purpose.

    • Occasionally one forgets oneself and pushes against the pricks. Jack must say, you play the part of a prick very well.

      • carl jacobs

        Do you have some empathy for me now? Do you understand my travails?

        • Jack has always had empathy for you situation as an American visiting a British weblog. That’s why he has taken you under his wing from tie to time and helped develop your sense of irony.

          • Cressida de Nova

            You are too kind Jack !

          • Yes, Jack knows.

          • Cressida de Nova

            ….You must be feeling a little better (chuckles)

            Sorry to hear about Penny. Creatures you love are irreplacable….not commodities with a use by date you replace on the shelf….Blogs are great insight into the insensitivity of the average person. Sweet dreams Jack !

          • Thanks, Cressie. Jack is off to bed now.

          • dannybhoy

            Or those who prefer cats to dogs?

      • Hi Jack

        Just to cheer you up , aside from my house lop rabbit , Ralph, I’ve also added an addition to the family with a puppy black Labrador whom we’ve named Malachi (my two other Labradors sadly passed away but in dog years they were in their 90s anyways) and a blue /gold Macaw, we’ve called Ezekiel who can say “Shabbat Shalom”already….

        • Hah … good one. Jack’s cocker spaniel died just before Christmas too. She was in her 13th year which one understands is a good age for this breed.
          Now, tell Jack, did one of the tribe post a comment on Mr M’s blog? Jack has been catching up and noticed a post addressed to a Jew who had contacted him. Has Sam been challenging the “Man”?

          • Hi

            I don’t think he would as Sam’s a direct person. The others wouldn’t post on a goy blog or waste time with an e-mail to said person.

          • carl jacobs

            Your dog died while you were in the hospital? Sympathies, Jack. That must have been painful.

            I’m genuinely sorry that happened to you.

          • Thanks, Carl. It was a sad loss.

          • Hi Jack

            Well I’ve found that post. Good for him. I don’t think he’s going to get many Jews converting . Actually he’s probably going to be a repellent. Which from my perspective is a good think.

            Sorry to hear about your cocker…

          • Anton

            Don’t greet Jack like that on an aeroplane…

          • Hi

            I was trying to comfort Jack, as a fellow dog owner, in the loss of his cocker spaniel….

          • Anton

            I meant “Hi Jack”! I too regret Jack’s loss.

          • Very droll ….

          • carl jacobs

            It was actually kinda funny. And I’m an expert on these things.

          • Cressida de Nova

            On mindless American vulgarity…most definitely !

          • IanCad

            So sorry about Rover Jack.

          • Thanks, Ian. Her name was Penny. She’s sorely missed.

            http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/rip-penny.html

          • dannybhoy

            Lovely dog Jack. You should get another. I love that picture of someone’s face from the shroud of Turin, no?
            I first saw that in Jerusalem at the White Sisters convent.

          • It is a very mysterious and enigmatic image, Danny. Here are a couple of meditations posted on Dodo’s website about its impact.

            http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/man-of-sorrows.html

            http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/is-this-holy-face-of-jesus.html

          • dannybhoy

            If I were to ever imagine what our Lord would look like, it is that image which deeply moved me.

          • Jack has had a copy of the Face from the Holy Shroud since he was 11 years of age. He has been digitally ‘cleaning’ and enhancing a downloaded image for years too. It is deeply moving and has different effects at different times.

          • dannybhoy

            That’s the meditative Catholic in you Jack. A quality I lack. Apart from that image I am most deeply affected by music and words..

          • Then you must listen to this and read Psalm 51 ….

            http://httpwwwmreman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/miserere-mei-deus.html

          • dannybhoy

            Yes I have heard this many times, but not with those words. Very beautiful.

            I rather liked this picture too..

            http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4pyG7mDtzxU/U1rGOdB3_4I/AAAAAAAAEFg/RuMt_jvCOw4/s1600/BCNMf3ACIAECdYO.jpg

            Is this your blog Jack? I notice Blofeld’s name there, which I am assuming is another incarnation of Old Blowers?

          • Pubcrawler

            Curious as to what other words you might have heard? As far as this early music buff is aware, there aren’t any others, only the text of Ps. 51.

          • dannybhoy

            It’s sung in Latin. I meant that I have read the psalm in various translations, but not seen that one.

          • Pubcrawler

            “It’s sung in Latin.”

            Er, yes, it usually is…

            “I have read the psalm in various translations, but not seen that one.”

            Ah, gotcha.

          • dannybhoy

            Er yes, but Latin ain’t a language wot I can speak… :0)
            Btw, am the only one for whom the blog seems to move the comments about? Sometimes it opens in the last comment, then it seems to move to a completely different part of the thread.

          • Pubcrawler

            “I freely admit to not having an artistic or soulful bone in my body.”

            I am genuinely sorry for you (though I agree with you re Stainer). I find the ancient Mozarabic, Byzantine and Ambrosian chants some of the most spiritually uplifting music I’ve ever heard, closely followed by early Angevin polyphony. Modern stuff*, not so much.

            “Jesus Lover of my Soul”

            I picked that hymn for my father’s funeral, and I think I will have it for mine also. But I find that arrangement a bit on the twee side, I’m afraid.

            * By which I mean anything post Orlando Gibbons — on the whole I’m inclined to agree with William Byrd: ‘Tallis is dead, and Music dies.’

          • Cressida de Nova

            What ever happened to Ernstie and his DIY commode ?

          • One often wonders the same thing, Cressida. He is sorely missed.

          • Cressida de Nova

            There were some hilarious exchanges. Gosh….a born again with a sense of humour….come back Ernst….you are needed here !

          • Jack prays for him. He was very ill and one hopes he is still with us. What’s difficult is that there’s no way of actually knowing. We make friends on here, and Jack counts Ernsty as a close friend, and then they disappear.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I think HG would know how to contact him because someone donated a motorised wheel chair for him c/o HG ages ago.

            It is probably a good idea to get an email address and correspond privately as well as on a blog if one feels that connectedness to a blogging friend. Otherwise, as you said, if they disappear ,you will never know if they have been hit by a bus or captured by aliens. Although in your case Jack, you are such a trusting person, you should be a bit circumspect about who you correspond with. There are a lot of odd bods out there in cyberspace. I hope you are feeling a little better and all this blogging is firing you up into a recovery.
            Cheers
            Cressie
            X

          • Anton

            As sung each Ash Wednesday afternoon in King’s College Chapel, Cambridge.

          • Pubcrawler

            It’s certainly best heard ‘live’, performed by a top-quality choir (strictly, two choirs).

            Incidentally, the top C for which the piece is probably most famous is a 19th-century copyist’s error.

          • Anton

            That’s not mentioned on its Wikipedia page:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miserere_(Allegri)

            Have you a reference, please?

          • Pubcrawler

            I got that snippet either from some concert programme or it was mentioned on the Early Music Show years ago. Can’t find a specific link, but there is this (mentioned as a source on the Wiki page):

            http://ancientgroove.co.uk/essays/allegri.html

            Supplementary: the Wiki page for Gregorio Allegri says this:

            “The music as it is performed today includes a strange error by a copyist in the 1880s. The curious “trucker’s gear change” from G minor to C minor is because the second half of the verse is the same as the first half, but transposed up a fourth. The original never had a Top C.”

          • CliveM
          • Pubcrawler

            Cool!

          • Cressida de Nova

            These Protestants are known to be one dimensional Jack…It is courageous of you to attempt to show them the way truth and the light.

          • dannybhoy

            Christians are never ‘one dimensional’, surely?

          • Cressida de Nova

            I said ‘ Protestants’ !

          • dannybhoy

            Right, so Christians are multi-dimensional and Protestants are one dimensional?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Your thoughts …not mine.

          • dannybhoy

            No, that’s my question to you.
            Unless heaven is operating an apartheid system I’d say that all who love the Lord Jesus Christ as sinners saved by His blood, are firstly Christians.
            In the order of importance the denomination we belong to comes a distant second.
            Isn’t that so?
            Within the Body of Christ are all sorts of people. Some sensitive and artistic, some practical, some shy, some loud, some bossy; but all acknowledging the Lordship of Christ and wanting to glorify Him in their lives.

          • carl jacobs

            The Shroud is a fraud, Jack. There is no evidence at all anywhere that it is the actual burial shroud of Christ.

          • We’ve covered all this on numerous occasions, Carl. it can never be proven to be the burial shroud of Jesus. However, apart from theories and speculation, the Shroud has never been proven to be a fraud.

          • carl jacobs

            the Shroud has never been proven to be a fraud.

            That isn’t the proper standard. You don’t treat it like it is authentic until you have proven otherwise.

            You have no provenance. You have no evidence of miracle since the effects of the shroud have been reproduced. You have nothing but a piece of cloth with an image on it that has somehow been turned into a de facto relic according to wish fulfillment.

            This is nothing but a desire for faith to become sight.

          • Read the various academic websites on the Shroud. Here’s one to get you started:

            http://www.shroud.com/

            The effects of the Shroud have never been precisely reproduced and there is some provenance dating it back to the 1st century.

            http://shroudencounter.com/worddocuments/Fact_Sheet.pdf

            And here’s a detailed summary of research written in 2015.

            http://www.shroudofturin.com/Resources/CRTSUM.pdf

          • carl jacobs

            Jack, that’s not provenance. That’s supposition. Put that cloth in the burial chamber of Christ in 26 AD. Can you do that? Do you any hope of ever doing that? No you don’t.

          • Jack has already conceded it can never be proven to be Christ’s burial Shroud. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t. After many years of following the developments in the research, Jack believes it to be genuine.

          • carl jacobs

            This is what drives me crazy about this topic. “We want it to be authentic so we declare it to be authentic. On the basis of nothing.” You would never accept this kind of evidence for an ordinary object absent the context of the resurrection. Never.

          • The Shroud of Turin is not the same as a cup. The fact is no one knows how or when the image on the cloth was formed.
            When Jack first saw this image over 50 years ago it made a very deep impression on him and it still does to this day. And, just so we’re clear, my faith doesn’t depend on its authenticity.

          • Anton

            Here is why I believe that the Turin Shroud is not Christ’s burial shroud:

            * In the 14th century Bishop d’Arcis of Troyes in France drafted a letter to a man he believed was Pope, in Avignon, reporting an investigation by an earlier bishop of his diocese. His letter ran: The Dean of… Lirey [in the same diocese]… not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, falsely declaring that this was the actual shroud in which our saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb… and further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked…after diligent enquiry and examination [the earlier bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human
            skill and not miraculously wrought.

            * The radio-carbon tests dated the Shroud to the 130 years before d’Arcis’ letter, accurate to a few decades. The tests were run in 1988 by Oxford University, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona. These laboratories also dated various materials of known age, including one from roughly the time of Christ. Results on these other materials confirmed the accuracy of the dating procedure, and all three laboratories agreed that the material tested from the Shroud was mediaeval. The samples of cloth used had been rigorously washed of any later contamination before the testing was done. Claims that the sample were from an “invisible repair” done on the Shroud by mediaeval experts do not hold up; such repair techniques can be done only on small holes and they are invisible only on one side of the cloth, but no such patches were detected even when specifically looked for on both sides (after the claim of invisible mending had been made) by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the mediaeval cloth expert involved with the Shroud at the church’s request.

            * The elongated body proportions of the Shroud image are typical of mediaeval art specifically.

            * The image has been reproduced using only techniques available in the 14th century – specifically, by wet-moulding a cloth over a bas-relief, letting it dry, and rubbing powdered pigment on with a dauber, just like a rubbing is taken of a gravestone. This disposes of objections that the 3D nature of the image could not have been fabricated by mediaeval artists.

            * Isaiah (50:6) foresaw that Jesus would have his beard pulled out during his final torments, but the figure on the Turin Shroud has a forked beard.

            * John (19:23-20:7) indicates that Jesus was stripped of clothing and crucified naked; after that, more than one piece of cloth was used to wrap his body with preservative spices, and a separate cloth was placed over his head. It is very difficult to reconcile this account with the claim that the Turin Shroud is a cloth placed over Jesus’ entire body and head.

            * If Jesus’ face was visible on his burial cloths, it is strange that the gospel accounts don’t mention this.

          • Jack isn’t of a mind to debate this as the matter cannot be settled on way on another. The points you raise are all speculative.
            On your penultimate point, have you heard of the Holy Face image on a cloth in Manoppello?

          • Anton

            In what way is the Isaiah beard argument speculative? And the radiocarbon dating – in your own words, please?

          • The Shroud image hardly shows a full beard and do the Gospels state Christ’s beard was pulled from His face? As for the carbon dating, please refer to the documents Jack has posted which explains this most satisfactorily.

          • Anton

            I too have looked at this question in depth and recently and am aware of no argument concerning the radiocarbon dating that survives the specific points I made in my paragraph above. How do you think, in view of those arguments, that it can be 2000 years old, please? I do not intend to submit to a request to knock down a series of arguments in websites you put up at no intellectual effort to yourself but at cost of a great deal of my time. YOU are making the claim so the onus is on you to rebut my claims and make your own claim in your own words and thereby show that you properly understand the science involved (although obviously you are free to look up whatever you like in the process).

          • Jack has no intention of wading through these arguments. He is satisfied and really it’s no matter to him what you believe.

          • Anton

            You are the final arbiter of your beliefs. But not of their concordance with the evidence.

            Are you not concealing a lack of competence to judge the scientific arguments involved?

          • Well Jack is not a scientist and certainly not an expert in this field.
            Here’s a good presentation of the flaws in the 1988 carbon dating that answers most of the points you’ve made.
            http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschneiderpaper.pdf

          • Anton

            No it doesn’t. The labs quote standard deviations of a few decades in many centuries and that value is obviously something of an underestimate given that the differences between the labs are a century or so. But that deviation is still only 15% or so of the mean age taken over all the labs, and to get a date of 2000 years ago they all have to be 300% wrong, which is massively greater than their error on the control samples of known date. So it’s nonsense. As, I’m afraid, are a great deal of the alternative hypotheses advanced in the paper under the name “superforger” – which I’ll gladly discuss with you once we’ve finished with the radiocarbon dating.

            As for the age vs distance-from-edge graph, look at Oxford and Zurich in sample 4, one of the controls of known age. The differences in their estimates match the differences in their estimates of the age of the shroud (sample 1) even though sample 4 presumably does not suffer from any “edge effect”. So the graph is spurious.

            Of course it would have been better to use more samples from several places in the shroud, and more laboratories. But the protocol was agreed between the scientists and the church in advance – and then varied by the latter. So don’t blame the former. I am not advancing any kind of conspiracy for that change, but the church did not understand how scientists work.

          • Thanks Anton but Jack will stick with the group of experts who have dedicated themselves to the science of the Shroud for many years.

          • Anton

            Appeal to experts is what non-experts do. But the experts on carbon dating are virtually unanimously against you on the subject. The authenticity party has to raise objections like contamination, or invisible mending (which was disproven by a church-hired expert on ancient cloth) or use bad statistical arguments like those I’ve just explained. (Don’t tell me it was made by an expert on mathematics, please; I do research in the interface of probability theory and physical science.) You are now appealing to the superior knowledge of a people because they have worked with the shroud for longer. Perhaps that is because they have become obsessed with it and are unable to move on – unlike every expert consultant in specific areas of relevant expertise, who have pronounced the shroud inconsistent with a 2000-year age and then moved on.

            Why is there such desire for the shroud to be authentic? Aren’t Christ’s words in the gospels enough? Isn’t this a subtle form of gnosticism?

          • Little Black Censored

            “But the experts … are virtually unanimously against you…”
            Cf man-made global warming.

          • Anton

            The experts there are not unanimous; that is a lie, a piece of propaganda by one side.

          • carl jacobs

            Why is there such desire for the shroud to be authentic? Aren’t Christ’s words in the gospels enough? Isn’t this a subtle form of gnosticism?

            Exactly so. I keep pressing the Up Button but it won’t register more than one vote.

          • Anton

            Are you questioning the accuracy of Isaiah’s prophecy that his beard was pulled out?

          • carl jacobs

            The points you raise are all speculative.

            And the arguments you posted above for provenance weren’t speculative?

          • They have a tad more substance having been backed by a group of objective scientists after decades of research and study.

          • carl jacobs

            Sure they do. Because that reference in a tenth century document is obviously a reference to that piece of cloth you call the Shroud. It is all speculation.

          • There’s a lot more in those links Jack posted. Try reading them without such a prejudicial attitude.

          • Anton
          • carl jacobs

            It is exactly like the cup, Jack. In every detail save one. The only difference is the allegedly “miraculous” image on the cloth.

          • Anton

            We can never prove Jack is talking rubbish on this subject but that doesn’t mean he isn’t. And I’ve had a good try – see my bullet points why it is inauthentic, below.

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. I would respond but I am chuckling too much to type. Heh Heh Heh.

          • It must be a great burden for you being such a cold hearted Calvinist.

          • carl jacobs

            Me? Cold hearted? I’m a comedic genius!

          • Maybe …. but you lack a poetic soul, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            I have written poetry for you, Jack. Remember? You made me. And it was good, too.

          • You can’t handle the miraculous and mysterious, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            You mean stuff like stigmatics and the Secrets of Fatima?

          • Yep …

          • carl jacobs

            And Conan the Barbarian and Sauron and the Orcs of Mordor?

          • Catholics are able to distinguish between the real and the imagined, Carl.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s the theory, anyways.

          • We have the Church to guide us and are not obliged to accept private revelations even when they are approved.
            Jack is off to bed now. Enjoyed the tussle. Goodnight and God Bless.

          • Cressida de Nova

            He bears all the hallmarks of an atheist….cold clinical and empty..These Protestant cults produce a lot of strange people,particularly in America.

          • Jack never talks rubbish Anton.

          • carl jacobs

            Wait an minute. I think we can prove that statement is rubbish Anton.

          • Anton

            First time for everything, Jack. And may I say that, for a presumed beginner, you do it jolly well.

          • Cressida de Nova

            That be right Jack !

          • It be right indeed, Cressie.

          • dannybhoy

            No believer in holy relics myself, but the shroud of Turin still remains a mystery, and AFIK the image on the cloth has never been shown to have been painted on. I have heard or read that a crude photographic image involving lemon juice was produced, but was subsequently abandoned.
            My own pet theory is that (if it is indeed genuine), the moment our Lord was resurrected the composition of His body changed, and the power of that resurrection burnt the image like a burst of radiation.
            If it is genuine…
            We may bear in mind that our Lord did not have a human father, that He sensed when power had left Him, and on the mountain top where He met with Moses and Elijah His body was again transformed. His face shone like the sun and His raiment became white as light..

          • carl jacobs

            the power of that resurrection burnt the image like a burst of radiation.

            What Scriptural evidence is there for this? And what purpose would it have served? Miracles are confirmatory. The exist to be seen. No one was in the grave to see it. And it’s not like there would need to be a burst of radiation. He speaks and it is done. Correct?

            We are imposing Hollywood special effects on the resurrection by this line of thinking. Those effects are included to communicate the story to the audience. Tty hey aren’t needed in the silence and solitude of the grave.

          • dannybhoy

            “What Scriptural evidence is there for this?”
            Fret not American cousin..
            As Jack mentioned a few days ago, we have the Scriptures, we have reason and we have tradition.

            We’re not seeking to build a new “Church of the Shroud” here Carl. It’s just Christians speculating on an item of great historical interest, and if it is genuine, what could have caused this image. Simples.
            Haven’t you never wondered about the fact that after Jesus had risen from the dead He could eat and drink, show the wounds in his body then apparently dematerialise at will.
            We are going to get a similar body. There will be no more time. We might be exploring the universe, perhaps other dimensions, joining heavenly choirs, taking harp lessons, who knows? It’s all speculation.

            Philippians 3>
            “20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”
            Going back to our Sunday visit to the Catholic church, there was one thing that impressed the wife and I. As they processed up from the back of the church, one person was holding a large candle and another a small bowl.
            We found out at our candle lighting ceremony that these represented our calling to be salt and light in the world.
            Which was the first time I had ever seen this done, and I rather liked it.

          • Anton

            Please see my comment below about the brass-rubbing technique on a cloth draped over a bas-relief,

          • dannybhoy

            I cannae find your comment on brass rubbing. Perhaps you could give a link?
            I posted a further response to Carl, and although it shows in my discus account doesn’t appear on the blog page..
            It seems that ‘chunks’ of conversation get moved around sometimes..

          • Anton

            I didn’t mention brass; sorry. I mean my post which began “Here is why I believe that the Turin Shroud is not Christ’s burial shroud” and which contained the following words:

            The image has been reproduced using only techniques available in the 14th century – specifically, by wet-moulding a cloth over a bas-relief, letting it dry, and rubbing powdered pigment on with a dauber, just like a rubbing is taken of a gravestone.

          • dannybhoy

            Reading through Jack’s lengthy links and other websites, I think that’s been discounted- at least in relation to the shroud.
            However, it doesn’t change my opinion that something amazing happened to His body when our Lord was resurrected.
            I think it’s in line with other people’s suggestions that God can suspend the laws of physics when He wants to.

          • Anton

            Well yes, something amazing and beyond the laws of physics happened to his body when he was resurrected, and it will happen to ours when we are, too. But I don’t see that that has to do with the Turin Shroud. Please outline why you think that wet-moulding of a cloth over a bas-relief followed by daubing cannot reproduce the shroud image. Please don’t just refer me to a website.

          • dannybhoy

            I have to refer you to a website because
            a) unlike you I don’t have a scientific background, and the findings of Dame Isabel Piczek, (particle) physicist, is beyond my comprehension.
            b) I am not trying to authenticate the shroud. Only saying that I was fascinated and moved by the figure revealed, and whether genuine or not, I think it fits in with the idea that there was a burst of divine energy which may have left an imprint on the burial sheet.

          • Anton

            There might very well have been, but I do not believe that the cloth now residing in Turin was there.

            Piczek’s article

            http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation

            uses plenty of buzzwords from physics but not in the way that a physicist who understands them properly would use them. What is the basis for saying that she is a particle physicist, please?

          • dannybhoy

            Because all the articles say she studied particle physics in her country of origin, Hungary.
            I have not been able to find separate verification yet.
            Did you read her account/analysis?
            Reading the recent comments in the subject, I can only point people to the other miracles that Jesus did, and say that if we as Bible believing Christians were asked to explain (for example) the water into wine, the feeding of the 3 or 5 thousand, and the raising of Lazarus, how would we go about it?
            So in relation to the resurrection and the burial cloths, it is quite possible that they were affected in some way by whatever energy transformed His body, Even if they subsequently disappeared or were destroyed, and the shroud is proved to be a fake.

          • Anton

            I read her article in the link I gave. I am intensely suspicious that she understands physics.

            I am convinced that the Turin Shroud is a fake, for the reasons I’ve given above. What happened to Christ’s actual burial cloths at his resurrection is something I have no views on beyond what is said in the gospels. You could be right.

          • dannybhoy

            “uses plenty of buzzwords from physics but not in the way that a physicist who understands them properly would use them.”
            Regardless of her bona fides, one might gently point out that requests have been to your good self to remember who you are talking to.. ;0)

          • Anton

            To whom do you think I might owe an apology, please, and for what words? I don’t understand what you are saying here.

          • dannybhoy

            No, you turkey! You don’t need to apologise to anyone.
            I meant that if the lady was talking to a non scientific audience she would probably have simplified her language.
            Just as I myself have asked you in the past to explain what you’re saying in simple terms.

          • Anton

            Always glad to do that! but if you imagine a not very well read atheist pretending to be a Christian then you’d get the idea of my suspicions about her use of physics terms.

          • dannybhoy

            I appreciate your wariness and the reasons for it, so here’s a youtube clip where she explains (as an artist) why the image cannot be a painting..

            I would have left it with us both agreeing that something wonderful must have happened at the very moment of resurrection -and remember Jesus saying to Mary, “Do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to my Father..”
            But that sense of fairness prompts me to ask you to watch the lady and draw your own conclusions..

          • Anton

            If her argument also excludes the hypothesis that the Turin Shroud cannot have been created by the rubbing of pigment onto a cloth draped over a bas-relief, and if it says stuff that isn’t in this article

            http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation

            which I’ve already read, then I’ll watch it; but please do me the favour of clarifying those things.

          • dannybhoy

            I think since HJ brought this up I’ve read three articles and watched three vids.. I know on one the lady says there is no way it could have been painted because the pigment would have inevitably broken down over the years (12th century or whatever) and she and some other guy says it is more as if the the fibriles of the fibres of the cloth were ‘scorched’..
            Take it or leave it.

          • There is evidence for your theory, Danny.

            In 2004, Dame Piczek, a physicist, became fascinated by the total absence of distortion of the Shroud image, a physical impossibility if the body had been lying on solid rock. Piczek’s work strongly suggests that the image of Jesus was projected as a quantum hologram onto the
            cloth as His body underwent the process of Resurrection.

            Piczek perhaps best known for her study of the Shroud of Turin was baffled “The entire Resurrection process is akin to the Big Bang creation of the universe when something was created from nothing,” explains Piczek. “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.”

            She further explains: “The Body is hovering between the upper and the lower sheet and there is NO
            TRACE OF GRAVITY. The lack of gravity is also further proven by the Shroud linen. The linen does not fall on top of the Body, but remains in its unnaturally stretched condition at some distance from the body.”

            To fathom or even scientifically explain “no time” “no space” “no gravity” is an impossibility:

            “According to the nature of event horizons the dead body must have left its image on the two surfaces of the event horizons. At the time of the explosion (when time
            stopped) of the event horizons these images were ejected onto both sides of the Shroud, with the body hovering parallel to the event horizons. This explains why the image shows a dead man, not the risen body, and also explains why the image is negative (went from a positive body image to the negative image like a camera film negative). This indicates how the image got onto the cloth.”

            The complicated physics behind the image on the Shroud explained: “As quantum time collapses to absolute zero (time stopped moving) in the tomb of Christ, the two event
            horizons (one stopping events from above and the other stopping the events from below at the moment of the zero time collapse) going through the body get infinitely close to each other and eliminate each other.’

            http://shoebat.com/2015/10/11/amazing-discoveries-reveal-that-the-shroud-of-turin-included-the-gospels-the-crucifixion-the-resurrection-and-the-trinity/

            And also see:

            http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation

          • Anton

            As a physicist I can assure you that that is complete bullshit. (If you want to get technical, why were there event horizons at all?)

          • Well Isabel Piczek, a particle physicist, disagrees with you. Have you read her paper?
            Isiaah prophesied: “I offered my body defenceless to the men who would smite me, my cheeks to all who plucked at my beard; I did not turn away my face when they reviled me and spat upon me.”

            This doesn’t say Our Lord’s beard was actually plucked out and, as already indicated, the beard on the Shroud’s image isn’t necessarily a full one and some have said it shows signs of having been pulled at..

          • Anton

            As I’ve said to another on this thread, I am intensely suspicious that she is a physicist. She uses physics buzzwords in that paper (yes, I’ve read it) in a way that sounds superficially impressive but that no trained physicist would. (Imagine a not very well read atheist pretending to be a Christian and you’ll get the idea.)

            Check the Hebrew of Isaiah: his beard was pulled out alright.

          • Isabel Piczek is also a religious artist so may well be unconventional in her use of words. It’s unlikely she would fabricate her qualifications.

          • Anton

            No, a physicist always uses physics words correctly. I make allowance for the fact that English is not her first language, but I remain sceptical. I didn’t say she had fabricated her qualifications; at a quick glance online I found only *other* people saying she was a physicist, and the word “physicist” is slightly more ambiguous than “qualifications”. The minimum I’d take it to mean (outside of chats between students discussing what subjects they are studying) is someone who has gained a degree in the subject and worked as a physicist afterwards for some time, whether in industry or academe.

          • What’s he point of all this … really … i.e. apart from a good argument?
            Your view that the Shroud is a medieval fake is not proven or backed by the science. Jack’s view that it is the burial Shroud of Christ, created at the time of His resurrection, also cannot be proven by science. Besides, you’ve already decided your position on religious and not scientific grounds. The significance you attach to the Isiaah passage demonstrates this. Plus, if it’s existence is not recorded in scripture it can’t be genuine.
            Here’s a good summary of Jack’s position:
            “The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
            Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archaeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

            No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

            We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a sceptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
            Dan Porter.

          • Anton

            “Your view that the Shroud is a medieval fake is not proven or backed by the science.”

            When you understand the science properly, you may say that with authority. You need to understand that the carbon dating of items some 700 years old has random errors of a few decades – as was quoted by each of the three testing laboratories themselves – and systematic errors of at maximum a century, as demonstrated by the different ages they quoted for a sample of cloth known to be of that age. None of the laboratories was more than 15% out for the age of mediaeval cloth or for the age of 2000-year-old cloth. But, for the shroud to be 2000 years old, they’d have to be 200% out. That is wholly implausible given their accuracy to within 15% on 700-year-old and 2000-year-old samples. Moreover, those systematic errors explain the supposed differing age of cloth from different locations on the shroud without further ado.

            The samples were well washed to remove later contamination so that they consisted overwhelmingly of linen fibres from the shroud.

            It can therefore can reliably be said that the samples of cloth sent to the laboratories are consistent with the timing of the faking asserted by Bishop d’Arcis.

            Objection has been raised that the part of the shroud tested had undergone mediaeval “invisible mending” and was not from the original warp and weft. Quite apart from the fact that anybody raising this objection is accepting of the radiocarbon date, the shroud has been examined after and in the light of this objection by the expert on mediaeval cloth hired by the church, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who says that invisible mending is possible only with smaller areas and even then is invisible on one side only – and she found no evidence of it at that part of the shroud.

            Therefore the samples tested are from the main warp and weft. Therefore the shroud is mediaeval. Just as Bishop d’Arcis said. Trust one of your own churchmen!

            No scientist is ever going to say that more tests are a bad thing, given that accuracy is increasing and and the sample size needed is decreasing all the time. But when scientists say that the radiocarbon dating of the shroud was controversial, they can mean more than one thing. They might mean that the result raised controversy (as it did among those committed to the shroud’s authenticity). They might mean that the invisible mending hypothesis had been raised and threw the value of the tests into question (something about which they knew no more than laymen). They might mean that radiocarbon dating had been shown to be slightly less accurate than had been believed. At some point, though, you have to go from words to numbers, and there is a world of difference between 20% error and 200% error – especially when control samples from the two relevant eras were reliably dated to a few percent. Grumblers about radiocarbon dating never acknowledge that inconvenient fact.

            “you’ve already decided your position on religious and not scientific grounds. The significance you attach to the Isiaah passage demonstrates this.”

            When the science and the scriptures coincide, I am not willing to separate the two. As for Isaiah 50:6, it is agreed by Christians of all traditions to refer to the “suffering servant” figure appearing in Isaiah who is Christ, and the Hebrew word in question means to make as smooth as by polishing. Check it for yourself (as I have in the last few minutes with somebody who understands Hebrew). The servant’s beard was pulled off. Deny that and you are denying Isaiah’s prophecy or denying all churchly exegesis that it refers to Christ. And this verse isn’t consistent with the figure on the shroud. The faker didn’t know his Old Testament!

          • For all the words you’ve posted you are simply asserting your opinion in opposition to many, many other more objective and still sceptical scientists who say the 1988 carbon dating was flawed.

            The Catholic Church accepts the Suffering Servant is Christ and is described by what she refers to as: “The Four Songs of the Suffering Servant of the Lord”. These are contained in: Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-7; 50:4-11; 52:13-53. Does it mean that there was a specific prophecy that His beard was to be plucked out? Not seeing the wood for the trees springs to mind and being a tad too literal. Isaiah 42:1-4 says: “He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets.” Hardly an accurate statement about Christ’s ministry!

          • Anton

            “For all the words you’ve posted you are simply asserting your opinion in opposition to many, many other more objective and still sceptical scientists who say the 1988 carbon dating was flawed.”

            You are not competent to judge which scientists are objective and which are not; witness the fact that you are ducking all my specific points about the science even though a man of your intelligence is capable of understanding them. Find me an acknowledged expert on carbon dating specifically who questions the statement that the samples tested at Oxford, Arizona and Switzerland are less than 1000 years old. you won’t. Find me an expert on mediaeval cloth who questions the statement by the church’s own hired expert Flury-Lemberg that mending invisible on both sides involving a patch as big as the sample region is impossible, meaning that the samples are from the main warp and weft of the shroud. you won’t. Look closely at the scientists you are putting your trust in and you will find that they were not experts in those particular fields. I am a physicist and not competent in organic chemistry, but I could say to someone in the street “I am a scientist, trust me on organic chemistry” and they probably (and wrongly) would.

            I’m glad you accept that Isaiah 50:4-11 refers to Jesus Christ. The relevant part of this passage runs:

            I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting

            Christ was beaten on his back (Matt 27:26) and then mocked and spat on (Matt 27:27-30). Those parts of Isaiah’s prophecy were fulfilled materially, and you expect me to believe that the middle phrase of it about his beard being pulled out is some weird allegory?

            No doctrine is at stake here, Jack. you can give up the Shroud and still carry on being a Catholic.

          • Little Black Censored

            “You don’t treat it like it is authentic until you have proven otherwise.”
            Gosh, you are heavy going! Who are you to say how we treat it? It is in the very nature of miracles that scientific proof is not available. In this case disproof – only once – would be conclusive, but nobody has managed it.

          • carl jacobs

            Well, OK. If you want to be wise, you don’t treat it as authentic until you have proven it to be authentic.

          • Little Black Censored

            I wasn’t being “wise” or perversely taking your words literally – what you meant to say was quite clear. I suppose I am quarrelling with your notion of “authenticity” which I think you are misapplying. This is not a work of art falsely attributed to the wrong artist. There is nothing in its known history that would rule out its coming from the right time and place. Its authenticity cannot be proved, but it would take only one piece of evidence to disprove it; so far that has not happened. In the meantime it is a matter for a person’s belief, and what is wrong with that? As you said, faith doesn’t need to become sight.

          • Anton

            If you want to believe that by a miracle it shows the true face of Christ superimposed on a late mediaeval cloth, by all means feel free!

          • Little Black Censored

            The belief that you will allow me to hold is not one I am attracted by, but thanks anyway.

          • Anton

            ?

            That’s what you may believe without my arguing back.

          • carl jacobs

            I am using “authentic” to mean that the Shroud wrapped the body of Christ in the tomb before the resurrection. That means the blood on the Shroud is the atoning blood of Christ. It means we would have a physical tangible connection to the most significant event in human history, and an image of the Lord Jesus in death. Make no mistake. That is the representation of a dead body shown on that cloth.

            Leave aside the theological implications of an image (miraculous or not) of the dead Christ as opposed to the living Christ – which I think problematic enough. Just consider the gravity of possessing that particular artifact. One of the many idolatries that has accrued onto Rome is Eucharistic Adoration. Rome already promulgates worship of the transubstantiated bread. What would it do with the actual Blood of Christ? It already “venerates” objects like this. But this would be just any object. People would put that object on the wall and worship it. And not just Rome.

            I reject the possibility of the Shroud for just this reason. If it was real, it would have to be destroyed like the Serpent of Brass.

          • Little Black Censored

            Who knows what God would done? The question is about what he actually did. If what he may seem to have done does not conform with our notion of how he ought to behave, then tough! You are ruling out the genuineness of the shroud, not on the evidence (because – as things are at present – you can’t) but because a priori God would not have allowed it. Those of us who are not so bound are free – as Anton has generously half-allowed – to continue for the time being to entertain the tantalizing notion that here we may have a direct material link to the crucifixion and burial of Christ: to the Greeks folly (it can’t be, so therefore it isn’t, my intellect won’t permit it) and to the Jews a stumbling-block (God would never have allowed this object to survive).

          • dannybhoy

            Further to my first comment below (and because I can’t find the original on the blog), I reprint this response..

            “What Scriptural evidence is there for this?”

            Fret not American cousin..

            As Jack mentioned a few days ago, “we have the Scriptures, we have reason and we have tradition.”

            We’re not seeking to build a new “Church of the Shroud” here Carl. It’s just Christians speculating on an item of great historical interest, and if it is genuine, what could have caused this image. Simples.

            Haven’t you never wondered about the fact that after Jesus had risen from the dead He could eat and drink, show the wounds in his body then apparently dematerialise at will.

            We are going to get a similar body. There will be no more time. We might be exploring the universe, perhaps other dimensions, joining heavenly choirs, taking harp lessons, who knows? It’s all speculation.

            Philippians 3>

            “20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.”

            Going back to our Sunday visit to the Catholic church, there was one thing that impressed the wife and I. As they processed up from the back of the church, one person was holding a large candle and another a small bowl.

            We found out at our candle lighting ceremony that these represented our calling to be salt and light in the world.

            Which was the first time I had ever seen this done, and I rather liked it.

          • Little Black Censored

            Where is the evidence that it is a fraud?

          • Anton

            See below.

          • carl jacobs

            There are really only two options. The Shroud is either authentic or it is a fraud. There is no credible third option. So set up the logic.

            1. If the Shroud is not authentic, then it is a fraud.

            2. The Shroud is not authentic.

            3. The Shroud is a fraud.

            That logic is unassailable.

            You may assert that the Shroud is authentic. Then prove it. Establish its provenance. You cannot do that.

            So you could say “The Shroud may be authentic.” OK. Prove it. Do you have Scriptural testimony to an image on the grave clothes? No. Do you have any Scriptural testimony that anyone kept the grave clothes? No. Do you have any evidence that the Shroud is a supernatural artifact – that it could not have been created by human effort? No. That 3D image on the Shroud has already been duplicated. It is not prima facia evidence of a miracle.

            So where are we then? You have no testimony. You have no evidence. You have no provenance. You have no miracle. What then do you have besides a desire that it be authentic? Nothing.

          • skeetstar

            I have always thought the shroud a fraud due the fact that scripture mentions a separate wrapping for the head, not a single sheet per the Turin cloth.

          • The linen used to wrap Jesus is mentioned in all four of the canonical gospels:

            Mark 15:46: “And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulcher.”

            Matthew 27:59: “And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.”

            Luke 23:53: “And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.”

            John 20:5 to 7: ‘Stooping down, John saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not enter the tomb. Then Peter came up after him and went into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying there; but the burial cloth which had been around Jesus’ head was not lying with the other linen cloths, but was rolled up in a place by itself’.

            The Mozarbic Rite in the Preface for the Saturday of Holy Week, dates from the 6th Century, and states:

            “Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints (vestigia) of the dead and risen man on the linens.” (M. Green. “Enshrouded in Silence” (The Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Part 3 ( p. 329).

            The Mozabaric Rite is still used in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary of Toledo, Spain and in the Anglican Communion churches in Spain. Mozarabics are Catholics of Arab descent that lived in the region of Spain.

          • Anton

            Of course there would be imprints; the weight of a body would have squeezed out a lot of juice from the aloes beneath it. Such a stain would be a very blurred shape relative to a human body, of course.

          • Lol …. that’s stretching it Anton. A stain us not quite the same as “imprints of the dead and risen man.”

            And this:

            “Pope Stephen III (reigned 752-757) refers to the Mandylion as “the glorious image of the Lord’s face and the length of his whole body was so divinely transformed that it was sufficient for those who could not see the Lord bodily in the flesh, to see the transfiguration made on the cloth.”“(Ian Wilson, ‘The Shroud of Turin’ p. 135)

          • Anton

            If you take Ian Wilson to be a reliable source then there really isn’t much to be said – although I’ll add that there is a gap of many centuries between the Resurrection and the first reports of any image, and that those reports are far earlier than the widest difference between the radiocarbon dates found for the Turin Shroud.

          • A radiocarbon dating that we now know to have been unreliable.

          • Anton

            I explained earlier on this thread why it wasn’t unreliable (post beginning: “No it doesn’t. The labs quote standard deviations of a few decades in many centuries…”) and you didn’t give any reasoned rebuttal to my argument.

            Also, Isaiah (50:6) prophesied that Christ would have his beard pulled out during the tortures of his last hours. You challenged me to find mention of that event in the gospels. Are you doubting the accuracy of Isaiah’s prophecy?

          • No … just saying it is not mentioned in any of the Gospels. And the translation given in Jack’s bible says Christ’s beard would be plucked at, not completely pulled out.

          • Anton

            It was pulled out – do check the Hebrew:

            http://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/50-6.htm

          • As Jack reads it, that allows for “pluck at” as well as “pluck out”.

          • Anton

            A Hebrew word that means render [the chin] smooth? That is utterly incompatible with the Shroud image, isn’t it?

          • But does it mean that, Anton? Jack has already said his bible doesn’t say so.

          • Anton

            Your Bible is an English translation and the original Hebrew means smooth according to the online website/concordance I gave.

          • Can you show where the word has been used elsewhere in scripture that demonstrates it has only this one meaning and not the one Jack is referring to?

            And if Christ’s beard had been completely plucked from His face, don’t you suppose this would have been recorded in the Gospels – especially if, as you contend, it was such a clear prophesy by Isiaah?

            The cited verse was Isaiah describing the torture practices of the Assyrians who pulled out the beards of their captives including skin and flesh. The prophet said he was willing to go through this.In fact, Isaiah prophesied to Ahaz if he didn’t repent his beard would be pulled out (Isaiah 7:20).

          • Anton

            It’s about the Suffering Servant figure who appears often in Isaiah and is agreed by all Christians to be Christ. And the Hebrew word means to be rendered smooth as by polishing. Christ’s beard was pulled off. Deny that any you are denying your own church’s understanding. How far will you go to defend that mediaeval teatowel?

          • That’s not an argument. You’ve simply demonstrated your a priori hostility to it.
            Whilst one accepts the Church’s position on the Suffering Servant as described in Isiaah 53 there is no compulsion to accept Christ’s beard was plucked out. And you’ve yet to demonstrate the word has the exclusive meaning you’ve assigned it or to explain why the Gospels do not refer to it.

          • Anton

            It’s you who have no argument but an a priori hostility. It seems that you are prepared to take it to the point of denying your church’s own views of who is being referred to in Isaiah 50:6 and/or the meaning of Hebrew words.

            The gospels didn’t tell everything that happened to Jesus. They say that themselves.

            Isaiah 50:4-9 is traditionally viewed as the third of Isaiah’s four “suffering servant” passages (the others are 42:1-4, 49:1-6 and 52:13-53:12) which all churches regard as referring to Jesus. I can put up a dozen Catholic websites affirming this. Tell me, who do you think it refers to? (And who does your priest think it refers to?)

            As for what happened to this servant, here in Hebrew and English is the relevant verse (50:6):

            http://biblehub.com/lexicon/isaiah/50-6.htm

            The relevant Hebrew word root is MRT and here it is in Strong’s universally accepted concordance, no. 4803 which you can get to from the preceding webpage by clicking, in the “Strong’s” column, the word corresponding to “to those who pluck out the beard”:

            http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4803.htm

            Its meaning is given as: to make smooth, bare or bald; to scour, polish.

            In the verse this is applied to his jaw/cheek, and is followed by the statement that he did not cover his face from humiliation.

            Do you dispute that, by the time this had been done, the servant had no beard? Please include in any reply an answer that question and also who you think this passage refers to.

          • You’ve had my replies. It’s a translation issue. You cannot prove the word used is not a process word rather than a reference to a final outcome. To suggest Christ had his full beard removed is a tad literal. The Shroud shows a part of the beard on the chin removed and one can’t see the cheeks. We can agree that Christ may well have had his beard pulled at but this isn’t the same as it being completely removed.

            “I offered my body defenceless to the men who would smite me, my cheeks to all who plucked at my beard; I did not turn away my face when they reviled me and spat upon me.”

            As for the science, Jack is more than satisfied with all the objective experts who say the carbon dating was flawed. You are one voice and have never studied the Shroud up close and personal.

          • Anton

            You are one voice and have never studied the Shroud up close and personal.

            That goes for you too.

            As you consider the radiocarbon dating to be flawed, do you consider that the radiocarbon dating process in the laboratories themselves was flawed; or that the samples were not properly cleansed from younger contamination; or that the samples were not from the main weave but an invisible patch? Those are the hypotheses advanced against the 1988 dating results.

            It’s a translation issue. You cannot prove the word used is not a process word rather than a reference to a final outcome. To suggest Christ had his full beard removed is a tad literal. The Shroud shows a part of the beard on the chin removed and one can’t see the cheeks. We can agree that Christ may well have had his beard pulled at but this isn’t the same as it being completely removed.

            If it’s a translation issue then we can resolve it by looking at the Hebrew. The word says that his jaw/cheeks were rendered smooth. There are other Hebrew words for plucked. Even if not all of his jaw/cheek was rendered smooth, the choice of word is not consistent with the shroud image, is it? The first thing you’d pull – and keep pulling -would be the forks on that guy’s beard.

          • The words do not say his jaws/cheeks were rendered smooth according to Jack’s bible. And one narked Bishop does not an argument make ….

          • Anton

            You have a translation designed, like all such, to be readable. I have given you the literal translation of the Hebrew according to a universally respected and scholarly concordance.

            What grounds do you have to doubt the sincerity and good faith of that bishop? And, as you consider the radiocarbon dating to be flawed, do you consider that the radiocarbon dating process in the laboratories themselves was flawed; or that the samples were not properly cleansed from younger contamination; or that the samples were not from the main weave but an invisible patch?

          • Cressida de Nova

            A naked Bishop? Bet he was a German 🙂

          • Rhoda

            In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
            With those from beyond the River,[c] with the king of Assyria,
            The head and the hair of the legs,
            And will also remove the beard.
            The word translated as remove(cphh) means scrape or shave not pull out and isn’t the same Hebrew word as used in Isaiah 50:6.

          • Rhoda

            The underlying meaning of the word in Isaiah 50:6 is “to bare, polish, make smooth or bald or bare. There are 9 uses of this Hebrew word in the King James translation, as follows furbished 3, fallen 2, plucked off 2, peeled 1, plucked off their hair 1.

            There are other words used in the Hebrew which are translated plucked e.g in Deuteronomy 23:25 (qtph) meaning to strip off ,of a crop, pluck off or as in Jeremiah 12:14 (ntsh) pluck out a meaning tear away, pull up, destroy. Each of these words is translated as pluck(ed) but they all have slightly different shades of meaning which our translations don’t show. In the Isaiah 50:6 verse the word is stronger than just plucking out a few odd hairs, the meaning of the Hebrew indicates the removal of all the beard.

          • skeetstar

            Anton, I guess you would be right, but Jesus was resurrected before folks had the chance to do the embalming procedures, mark ch 16 tells us that they were on their way to the tomb with spices , after the sabbath, but they were too late, the tomb was empty.

          • Anton

            I’m going by John 19:39-40:

            Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen.

          • skeetstar

            Yep, yer right, I’d forgotten that, I stand corrected.

          • dannybhoy

            Me too.

          • skeetstar

            Jack, I know nothing of the Mozarbic rite, but still can’t get away from the fact of a separate head cloth for the head. Of The scriptures you quote , John speaks of the separate cloth, of the synoptic gospels, Matt says nothing of post resurrection fabrics, Luke and mark, both mention prices of cloth in the plural. I see no scriptural evidence for a single shroud, but I do see evidence of multiple cloths. I just don’t see how the shroud can be authentic.

          • There was a single shroud for the body and a separate piece of linen for Our Lords face.

          • Little Black Censored

            The separate cloth was a napkin, folded into a bandage, and tied under the jaw and over the top of the head. If that is the only reason why you think the shroud is forgery, then you can continue your investigations.

          • skeetstar

            Lbc, to be honest, my ,’investigations’ stopped years ago. To my mind, the shroud is in the same category as bits of the true cross, Jesus’ foreskin, and a container of Mary’s breast milk – medieval gew gaws designed to separate he gullible from their cash.

            Hope that doesn’t come over as offensive, it’s not meant to be.

          • There’s plenty of evidence:

            http://shoebat.com/2015/10/11/amazing-discoveries-reveal-that-the-shroud-of-turin-included-the-gospels-the-crucifixion-the-resurrection-and-the-trinity/

            “Pope Stephen III (reigned 752-757) refers to the Mandylion as ‘the glorious image of the Lord’s face and the length of his whole body was so divinely transformed that it was sufficient for those who could not see the Lord bodily in the flesh, to see the transfiguration made on the cloth.’ (Ian Wilson, ‘The Shroud of Turin’ p. 135).”

            “And way prior to the carbon dating of the Shroud, history proves it was of no late invention as some falsely speculated. Throughout history, the Shroud is an intriguing corroboration to the known existence of the image of Christ on the Shroud as revealed in the Mozarbic Rite in the Preface for the Saturday of Holy Week, which dates from the 6th Century:

            “Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints (vestigia) of the dead and risen man on the linens.” [Underline added.] (M. Green. “Enshrouded in Silence” (The Ampleforth Journal, Vol. 74, Part 3 ( p. 329).

            The Mozabaric Rite is still used in the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St. Mary of Toledo, Spain and in the Anglican Communion churches in Spain. Mozarabics are Catholics of Arab descent that lived in the region of Spain.”

          • IanCad

            What an absolutely adorable family member.
            I do hope things get better for you Jack.
            Prayers as always.

      • Cressida de Nova

        He is not playing a part….he is one !

      • Anton

        You mean that he needles you, of course…

        • Is there any other interpretation?

          • Anton

            Not one that would stand up.

    • CliveM

      Was wondering how long you were going to enjoy winding Happy Jack up!

      Very unkind, he’s not a well man.

      • dannybhoy

        The wife and I attended a Catholic church service this afternoon with the theme of Christian unity. We were even entrusted with candles (how did they know I wouldn’t go into “Anglican Ninja mode” and burn the place down..?)
        Actually, we found nothing to be offended about (no Mass) and people were very friendly.
        I thought Jack would be very pleased with me… :0)

        • It’s a first step but Jack has reservations about modern ecumenicalism which seeks to gloss over rather than resolve significant differences. The way things are heading Luther will be canonised soon.

          • dannybhoy

            I disagree Jack.
            In fact I was saying to a few people this afternoon that rather than immediately wage theological warfare, build a friendship based on the things you do agree on, and then later discuss differences from a position of Christian friendship.

          • Uncle Brian

            Once again, Danny, I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you.

          • James60498 .

            I often think that it would be great for those of us who write here to go out campaigning together on the things that we generally agree on. (Leave aside the geographical distances between us).

            But I rather suspect that some might not want to campaign with some others. And that most of those reluctant to work together would not be Catholic.

            I am in the process of trying to get two groups to work together at the moment. I will let you know how I get on.

          • dannybhoy

            Surely it depends on your relationship with Christ? His love for us is so deep and wide, it leaves us no room (or excuse) to build our own little kingdoms based on doctrinal correctness and protecting the truth as we understand it.
            That’s not to say we should place (ecumenical) unity above Truth,
            but Jesus is the Truth; and whatever the composition of His nature, this Man bled and died for us to bring us salvation.
            It is His resurrection that confirms Him as the Truth. It is the Holy Spirit at work within us, purifying and renewing our inner man.
            I think what binds us together as brothers and sisters, is how much of Jesus we see in each other.

          • Anton

            Start a campaign against, for instance, pornographic sex education in schools and your committee will contain Catholics, evangelical protestants and Muslims.That isn’t theological compromise by anybody; what’s not to like?

          • James60498 .

            I do like it. I was concerned about the wording in my final paragraph and maybe didn’t get it quite right.

            In fact I am trying right now to get supporters of an Evangelical organisation to join with a (mainly but not exclusively ) Catholic organisation in my town.

            I have not yet had a reply from the Evangelical organisation but I am hoping that it’s just a matter of time.

          • dannybhoy

            We are involved with Churches Together, which includes the Catholics. Their priest is reticent about some of the ‘evangelical’ aspects of our activities, but to be fair,
            (and I always try to be fair),
            there are evangelical groups who don’t want to work together either.

          • James60498 .

            Noted.

            I am really though thinking of the more political side of things.

            There are a number of organisations, (mainly Christian, or at least have mainly Christian members and/ or supporters) in the country who campaign on very much the same issues, but don’t necessarily seem to work together. At least a part of the reason seems to be that some are mainly Catholic, others are Evangelical.

            That’s what I am trying to work on locally.

          • Cressida de Nova

            A lot of us will go underground to practise true Catholicism with our true priests if this ever occured. True Catholicism will be kept alive even if it means a split….Hopefully the time will never occur. Remember – the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

        • CliveM

          I stayed the night in a monastery once, at Fort Augustus (now shut) long story.

        • len

          I had a car once the former owners were nuns, but I still bought it car didn`t take this protestant very far though , was it revenge?.

          • dannybhoy

            Probably felt resentful..

          • CliveM

            I bought a car whose previous owner was a RCC Priest. He had it 18mths and had done less then 3k miles. But here’s the thing, it had an integrated sat nav! Why? He hardly drove the car,…….. ☹️

          • dannybhoy

            A priest you say?
            Are you sure it wasn’t some kind of digital lectionary?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Probably. They read this blog and your anti Catholic rants. Time to see the error of your ways. Recant and convert !

          • Dreadnaught

            Was it powered by a Rosory Engine?

      • carl jacobs

        He compared me to Bob!

        I was just pulling his chain ever so slightly. And just to develop his character. It was good for him.

        • CliveM

          “He compared me to Bob!”

          Delirium………..

          • carl jacobs

            No, RCism just sounds like delurium. It’s easy to make that mistake.

          • CliveM

            You’re taking unfair advantage of his weakened state.

          • carl jacobs

            Naah. Jack said it.

            Indeed and nowadays exercise and activity is recommended to those recovering from cancer treatment.

            See, I’m helping him. And besides. You would have to establish 1) that Jack is in a weakened state and 2) that it’s possible to take unfair advantage of Jack.

          • CliveM

            Just don’t say I didn’t warn you…………………..!

  • Democracy is a great idea, but there are very few democracies where the welfare of all citizens receives equal attention. A vote doesn’t mean much if you belong to a small minority group, unless you have the wealth and influence to offset that disadvantage. Expensive election campaigns funded by special interest groups ensure that the welfare of the patrons always takes precedence over that of ordinary citizens.

    The situation in Europe – where a faceless leadership in Brussels direct events from above using elected leaders as pawns – is only slightly better than in countries where electoral fraud and corruption are the norm.

    When Goldman Sachs and others, who presumably have never poured money into healthcare, education or pensions, pay to promote a particular outcome, their interest is not benign. If they succeed, their stranglehold over political decisions will only grow tighter. And once this referendum becomes a thing of the past, the supreme leaders of the EU will engineer laws and events to ensure that there will not be another.

  • sarky

    Of course the Pope wants us in Europe. His churches would be half empty if it wasn’t for the influx of our eastern european friends.

    • dannybhoy

      But most Brits don’t go to church Sarky, and even fewer attend a Catholic church..

    • The Explorer

      According to the staying-in leaflet, leaving the EU would have no effect on immigration. There would still be free movement.

      • James60498 .

        That’s because they want us to believe that we would have to do what the EU says even if we aren’t in it. Therefore, they claim, that we might as well stay in it so that we can “have a say” in making the rules.

        Apparently if we don’t, Germany is going to refuse to sell us their cars. I think that’s it, anyway.

        • The Explorer

          Quite. More to the point, Japan had car plants in Britain so that cars could be exported to the EU as Britsh cars rather than as Japanese cars. The question then is if that will continue, or will the Japanese relocate elsewhere in Europe?

    • One good reason in itself to consider remaining in the EU. If it keeps the faith alive in Britain in the face of secular humanism, then it is no bad thing.

      • Philip

        Rofl.
        Which faith?

        • Er, Christianity. It’s a major theme in the speech of Pope Francis you posted. The Catholic Church has been pushing this as an issue for years.

      • But it hasn’t has it HJ? In fact the EU is anti-Christian.

    • Bob

      Half empty? Nine tenths empty you mean. And that’s being generous.

  • CliveM

    Outside of a few independents, I wonder if any of the main churches will suggest that leaving the EU will be the best way ahead? The RCC, the Anglicans, the Church of Scotland, the Methodists etc? Can anyone see any of them endorsing brexit?

    For good or ill however. I don’t see beyond producing a free lines of comments in newspapers, that anyone will be influenced by it.

    For what it’s worth, the vote will keep us in, by a healthy margin and will resolve nothing.

    • dannybhoy

      NOOOOO!
      Don’t say that!
      We will come out, we will..
      (Violently clicks ruby red heels together and thinks of Brexit..)

    • Notforinfants

      Clive. I hope you are not really defeatist?! Perhaps you are relying too much on denominational ‘group think’ which in my view will have absolute minimal influence, simply because people will think this out for themselves as individuals – not churches.
      There is every reason to be very optimistic although not complacent as the growing number of ‘leave’ EU groups begin to stir.
      One central issue is to resolve the question many will ask, namely what is the Brexit alternative to leaving in terms of trading with others, and the empty threat of losing the benefit of the Single Market.
      Space forbid expanding on this, but I warmly recommend a look at:
      http://euquestion.blogspot.co.uk/

      • CliveM

        Thing about referendums is typically the vote goes with the stays quo. It’s why govts allow them.

    • Anton

      On the contrary; the vote will be for out and will resolve nothing. The people, having been consulted, will be circumvented.

      • CliveM

        Time will tell. I’m quietly confident in my prediction however.

        In addition if there is an out vote, I disagree, we will leave.

        It’s staying in that will resolve nothing

        • Anton

          It’s a complex situation alright; the Euro is going to unwind when Spain follows the Greek path, an free movement across borders is not going to survive when everybody in the Middle East tries to come to Europe. Those are the EU’s flagship policies and it will not survive in its present form irrespective of what Britain does.

          • CliveM

            I agree these policies won’t survive in their present form. Either the eu will fall apart, or go for full Union. I think a significant core will go for full Union.

            The above is one reason why voting to stay in will resolve nothing. It simply avoids the question, do we wish to be part of a European state. That won’t be the question asked, but is the question that should be answered.

  • David

    It continues to baffle me how Christian denominations can support the godless, atheistic organisation that is the EU. It promotes laws based on Humanism and even its constitution refuses to recognise the one, indeed the main cultural component around which a “european” identity could possibly be formed – its shared Christian heritage !
    My only explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs is that the elites of the various Churches prioritise their liberal and left orientated political views over their Christain faith.

    • Philip

      “We’re not in favour of walls.”
      Archbishop Gallagher.

      • Little Black Censored

        The Bible and Shakespeare are against him.

    • James60498 .

      I think you are right that some of the leaders of the main Christian denominations are diseased by liberal left views.

      But I think more than that, many of them are administrators first. Certainly in England. They see their job as keeping the organisation running (even if in the case of the CofE in particular, but not exclusively, it’s into the ground) and that involves working with the Governments. They could equally well work with whatever kind of government there is in place.

      Got to keep Catholic schools going, even if that means having “Diversity Days” and sending out government letters on Extremism. Even if the main lesson in RE is that “it doesn’t matter what you say as long as you can justify it” So what if the unmarried RE teacher goes off on maternity leave and is replaced by an atheist?

      As for my Brother in Law Head of a CofE school, he doesn’t even go to Church at Christmas or Easter now. But what does it matter provided the school gets good results?

      You don’t need beliefs and opinions to be a good administrator. And that’s what most (not all) of the Bishops are, or at least strive to be. And if they need to follow Pilate and crucify Jesus to do it, then that’s just unfortunate.

      • dannybhoy

        I’d go with that. If the Civil Service allowed men and women to dress in the gender of their choice, they’d fit right in..

        • The Explorer

          You mean like ‘Silence of the Lambs’? A bloke wearing a vest made out of women’s skin? On the days when he wants to be a bloke, he can take it off. (The women, unfortunately, don’t have the option of putting it back on; they’re dead.)

          • dannybhoy

            No, leave out his last sentence. I do think that Anglican bishops are more comfortable as administrators.

  • Philip
    • Actually, it is a good speech and well worth a read.

      • Philip

        I agree.

  • prompteetsincere

    The last Roman ‘inspired’ Reich, duly attested on July 20, 1933, did not end well;
    the Prophet Daniel confirms that neither will the next one + Daniel ch. 2;8;
    and The Revelation of Jesus Christ, chs. 1-22, seals it.

    • Anton

      Surely January 30, 1933?

      • carl jacobs

        The date given is when the Vatican and Hitler’s gov’t signed a treaty.

        • Anton

          Ah, the Reichskonkordat. Thank you.

      • prompteetsincere

        January 30, 1933 attested by signature by Rome on July 20, 1933.

    • Hitler and the Nazi Party hated the Catholic Church. To suggest the Church inspired the Third Reich or supported it in any way is sheer nonsense.

      • carl jacobs

        This is true. Hitler hated Christianity and sought explicitly to de-Christianize Germany.

      • prompteetsincere

        The Roman Church’s dual allegiance to Christ and Caesar, two sets of keys, has compromised its history throughout the spiritual warfare that in essence is the history of History. + Ephesians 6.

        • Then provide some actual evidence rather than fabricate some fantasy about Hitler and the Church.

        • Albert

          Trying to protect people from Hitler’s state, is not a confusion of Church and state.

      • len

        Ever heard of ‘The Reichskonkordat”It was signed on 20 July 1933 by Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) on behalf of Pope Pius XI and Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen on behalf of President Paul von Hindenburg and the German government.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

        • Yes, the very thing we’re discussing. It was the Vatican’s attempt to protect the Church from growing persecution. In no way did it ‘inspire’ the Third Reich.

          • Anton

            Isaiah (ch. 28) called such things a “covenant with death”.

          • On Hitler’s side.

          • Anton

            Yes; I was not suggesting that Hitler in covenanting with the Vatican was making a covenant with death. I do suggest, however, that God made his view of such covenants pretty clear when he spoke that phrase through Isaiah.

          • Ivan M

            You, running a church of one, have the luxury of doing otherwise. Would you consider the attempts by the RCC to come to an accommodation with mainland China a covenant with ‘death’?

          • Anton

            Quite possibly. Tell me more about this, and don’t judge what you don’t know about me.

          • Ivan M

            I know about you, only what you choose to reveal here, but it is glaringly obvious to me that consistency is not one of your strong suits.

          • Anton

            You could always tell me about Rome and Beijing instead of insults.

          • Cressida de Nova

            No one wants to hear that truth on here Jack.

          • Some die hard anti-Catholics use any opportunity to knock the Catholic Church and her history. One can understand attacking the mediaeval Church but not her valiant efforts during the War.

          • Cressida de Nova

            ,They were valiant indeed…the number of priests, nuns and lay Catholics who hid Jews are conveniently forgotten about .

          • The anti-Catholic sentiment displayed by some on this thread is sickening, Cressie.

          • Cressida de Nova

            It is historical. Why would you expect anything to be different? This is a Protestant blog. This is a Protestant country.They are culturally indoctrinated to see Catholics as the enemy. You know how it goes….If you are a Catholic in England you usually keep very quiet about it. I know I did:)

        • Ivan M

          Your fellow Protestants and freethinkers were the ones who made it necessary for the Reich Concorde. It was the direct result of the Kulturkampf launched against the Catholic Church by the Prussians to consolidate the power of the German State, in Bavaria and other Catholic areas. Bismarck, the iron wit, was heard to say “we will not go to Cannossa (this time)” in reference to an earlier time when the German Emperor Henry had to go hat in hand to Pope Gregory VII. It marked a substantial victory in the temporal realm for the German State. The provisions of the Reichkonkordat became necessary as reflection of the weakened state of the Catholic Church, to defend her now limited, rights to appoint priests, rectors and Catholic education.

          And by the way do look in the mirror once in a while, by which I mean check the electoral map of which regions voted for the Nazi Party in 1932. You will find them overwhelmingly Protestant.

          http://romanchristendom.blogspot.sg/2008/10/face-it-protestant-areas-voted-for.html

          Now I don’t blame the voters, in many instances they tended to vote for the Nazis on economic grounds, farmers and small -timers, only a handful would have voted for unsavory reasons.

          • len

            It never ceases to amaze me how you catholics cannot seem to stop digging ven when the hole gets so big they start to disappear…byeeeeeeeeeee

          • Ivan M

            BFN, but I am certain you will take consideration what I wrote the next time you want to ride on your hobby horse.

          • len

            The Vatican backed the Nazis because they were anti Communist. This is a fact might be unpalatable but it is a fact.The Vatican saw Communism as a greater threat than Fascism.

          • Ivan M

            So? I happen to think the same. What has that got to do with the RCC concluding a treaty with the German State to protect the interests of Catholics?

          • Anton

            You say many things that are true, but Christ did not think it “necessary” to make pacts with this world.

      • Philip

        Sorry Jack but there is a complication. Pope Pius XII did support Hitler because as Pope, he was convinced that Russia had to be converted from Communism to Christianity based on his devotion to the messages of Fatima in 1917.
        He hoped the Reich would be a bulwark against Communism and that took priority.

        But yes, behind closed doors, Adolf Hitler expressed his contempt for Christianity in any form because it glorified humility and turning the other cheek which he believed weakened humanity.

        There is no escaping that fact. Pius XII even had his own Fatima-type vision in the Vatican gardens.

        • In 1933 the British political elite saw Communism as more of a threat than Hitler and hoped Germany would stem its threat.

        • Albert

          What is the evidence that Pius XII supported Hitler?

        • Ivan M

          There is every evidence that Eugenio Pacelli hated Communism. Who in his right mind seeing the devastation inflicted on the Russian Empire and the Orthodox Church by the Bolsheviks would not? The greatest single act of carnage in world history as the historian Martin Malia put it. (Though I would include the destruction of the Abbasid Caliphate by the Mongols in the same class.) Yes he made a name for himself among those who keep count, by noting that the usual Bolshie troublemakers circa 1919, were attempting to fill the vacuum in Germany with something similar. He would definitely have welcomed the FreiKorps putting them in their place, as I myself would. I would have considered it my duty. But no he didn’t need to support Hitler to oppose Communism, he had the Catholic parties in Germany to do that.

    • David

      Hitler hated Christianity in all its forms, executing the great Lutheran theologian Bonhoefer hours before Berlin fell to the allies using piano wire. Hitler preferred Islam reaching an accommodation with the Grand Mufti. Both systems share compulsion which appealed to Hitler.

      • prompteetsincere

        Their common “compulsion” was the extermination of world Jewry;
        the Reichkonkordat granted Hitler the necessary moral authority to do so:
        “…especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry” ( Hitler to Cabinet meeting, July 14, 1933).
        The ready compliance of the RCC already was demonstrated on April 25, 1933, when in their thousands the Church’s Priests took part in a blood purity attestation process on the basis of Church registers.
        The most current RCC ‘Reichkonkordat’ with avowed amt-Semitic and anti-Christian evil was the Papal approval and prayers for the P5+1 Nuclear deal on Easter Sunday, 2015;and on Easter Monday, its RCC US House of Bishops and Nuns issuing a letter to the US Congress to cease and desist all debate on the matter.

        • Ivan M

          Don’t talk bloody nonsense. Pius XII could not protect the thousands of priests and nuns done to death by the Nazis, his closest brothers and sisters, yet somehow he and Hitler were friends. Pius XII as Eugenio Pacelli, was born with a silver spoon, destined for a career as a diplomat, thus his natural diffidence. He endured a living martyrdom during the Second World War. I have no doubt that he would have preferred death to what he endured in the Vatican’s cold rooms. Yet he had to serve his Fuehrer, the Lord Jesus Christ, wherever it pleased God to place him. Pius XII as John Paul the Great said of him to counter the cheapshots was among the greatest of Popes.

          • Anton

            Pius XII was not antisemitic. But it is a travesty to say that he was among the greatest of Popes in view of his (in)action during the second World War. If he had preferred martyrdom then he could have had it, no doubt about that. In that case he genuinely would deserve to be remembered as one of the greatest Popes.

          • Ivan M

            Take it up with JPIi who was imprisoned by the Nazis breaking frozen shit as a young seminarian. He and those who endured know what it took to walk in that great man’s shoes. Talk is cheap.

          • Anton

            He was being overly complimentary. John Paul II was the sort of man you would have wanted in the Vatican during WW2. Reportedly he told the Kremlin that he would return to Poland to lead the resistance to any Soviet invasion that sought to put down Solidarity.

          • Ivan M

            John Paul II would have put Pius XIi on the road to canonisation if it were up to him, since he knew the price paid by Pius for fidelity to his Master in his impossible situation. But he had to defer to the spirit of the age which revels in pretending that they would have c**k-blocked (pardon my French) Hitler with ease. The same who can’t do a single thing about abortions happening next door.

          • Anton

            I don’t understand what you are saying here. I see two questions: Why did John Paul II not take the next steps in the canonisation of Pius XII if he regarded him as one of the greatest Popes? And was Pius really one of the greatest Popes? I have no answer to the first, less important, question, although the idea that it would have rebounded on JP2 to an extent he was not willing to countenance is scarcely plausible. As for Pius, there are no grounds for calling him a coward in regard to his own skin, but he clearly prioritised the preservation of the fabric of the city of Rome and the Vatican and its archives above all else even though he was the one man who might have influenced the course of the war by words alone, and Catholic apologists skulk behind his preservation of Rome’s Jews in order to avoid engaging with that fact.

          • Come of it, Anton. How on earth could Pope Pius have influenced the course of the war? He would have been taken out in a moment by Hitler had he posed an overt threat. In any event, the Allies wouldn’t have moved against Hitler. The Pope chose to pick his battles rather than behave recklessly which would have resulted in the persecution of Catholics and the destruction of not only the Vatican but all other Catholic Churches.

          • Anton

            You are looking only at the possible bad effects and ignoring the possible good effects. Notice also that the Nazis continued to collect taxes from Catholics on behalf of the Vatican throughout the war (the kirchensteuer, still in force today in Germany). Did this deter the Vatican from speaking out?

            During World War II the Vatican gave help to thousands of the Jews of Rome. But, had Pius XII spoken out against the Holocaust, had he called on German Catholics not to take part or warned them that it was a mortal sin, had he excommunicated Hitler (never done; nor was Mein Kampf put on the Catholic Index of prohibited books), what might have happened? Catholic historians dwell on the increased persecution of Catholics and Jews by Nazis in the dioceses of Catholic bishops who spoke out; but ignore other plausible consequences. Nazi persecution of a Pope would have been likely to change the attitudes of previously friendly Catholic neutrals such as anti-British Ireland, fascist Spain and Latin America, all having strategically crucial coastlines that could have been made available to the Allies. The Pope, uniquely, could reach into the hearts of many of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s troops. Italy might have switched sides sooner. If the war had ended earlier then the Iron Curtain would have fallen further east, and many fewer Jews would have perished in the Holocaust.

            The Nazis were well aware of the risk posed by Pius, and their ambassador to the Vatican frequently asked hypothetical questions about its response to possible Nazi courses of action. The one man who might have influenced the course of the war by words alone made no such declaration. Pius, who was well briefed about the Holocaust – the Catholic hierarchy of parish priests and bishops made a superb information service – kept quiet about Europe’s greatest evil while it went on. His words and deeds rose only to those of a dutiful bishop – helping the local Jews of Rome – rather than the Papacy whose word would echo throughout the continent. While Rome was in fascist hands during World War II, Pius gave public messages which merely lamented the evils of the war in terms so general that the Vatican could deny that these comments were targeted at Nazism if Nazi diplomats made threats. Pius came closest in his Christmas 1942 message, following warnings from neutral Latin American Catholic countries that his silence was harming the papacy’s moral authority. Near the end of this 45-minute monologue he said that “Mankind owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline.” This was the fourth in a series of six consecutive “Mankind owes this vow…” statements, specifying suffering groups including mothers of combatants and people bombed out of their homes. His speech merely had the effect of categorising Holocaust victims with these, and Pius never mentioned Jews or Nazis by name.

            His assistance to the Jews of Rome shows that his silence was not due to anti-semitism. His obvious motivation was to preserve Rome, the Vatican, and its archives and treasures from the ravages of war: from Nazi sacking and later from Allied bombing, which he regularly pressed the Allies not to do. A Nazi sacking would carry off not only the Jews he had been protecting but also the church’s archives and treasures. How high a priority was that for Pius? He wrote a private letter on March 21st, 1944 to Bishop Preysing of Berlin stating that he was bound by his conscience to try to save Rome because it had always been the centre of Christendom, and its destruction would supposedly shake the faith of Catholics worldwide. (Preysing, although resident in the heartland of Nazism, wanted Pius to speak out about the Holocaust, a fact that wrongfoots apologists who hold that Pius kept quiet for the sake of Catholics in Nazi lands.) Once the Germans had retreated northwards from Rome, however, and were threatening the Jews of northern Italy, Pius told the Allies that he would press the German ambassador to the Vatican to ask Hitler to cease deporting Jews, as a matter of conscience. These two mentions of conscience by Pius appear to be the only two he made in relation to the Holocaust. Taken together they indicate that he prioritised Rome, the seat of the Catholic church and his own home city, over the fate of Europe’s Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Could the outcome for the Jews have been worse if he had spoken out? If he kept silence for the sake of the Roman Jews he was sheltering, why did he not consult their leaders over about whether to speak out about the genocide of their brethren? If Hitler had known that Pius would never do more than protect a few thousand Jews in Rome and make one radio protest that did not mention Jews or Nazis by name, he would have been delighted.

          • That’s all speculation and whatifery, Anton. And you are placing a very negative and unproven spin on Pope Pius’ motives. Why is that? The Pope would have been playing with people’s lives by openly opposing Hitler. He was seeking to protect Catholics from persecution.

          • Anton

            Of course there’s some whatiffery there – just as there was in your post to which I was responding. You started doing counterfactual history here, so don’t complain when I do the same.

            Please note that I am not accusing Pius XII of antisemitism or cowardice over his personal fate.

          • Jack is sure he did all he possibly could and preserving the faith and lives of Catholics would have been priorities for him. You really think anyone could have stopped Hitler? You think Communism a better option?

          • Anton

            So do you think Churchill should have swapped sides once the immediate threat to Britain was over and Hitler had invaded Russia?

          • Er … no. Hitler and Stalin both needed to be stopped.

          • Ivan M

            Pius through his efforts was trying to find an alternative route to stop the war in terms that would leave minimal gains to Joseph Stalin. It is of the trope of post war propaganda that there was no alternative to the unconditional surrender of Germany. A position that suited Stalin no end. The narratives are subsidiary to that end. Hence the need to denigrate Pius and those like him. Seeing that the greatest slaughters were still ahead from 1943 on, Pius looking for alternatives make eminent sense. But of course the apologists for total war would beg to differ.

          • Ivan M

            The man who saw his nation destroyed by the Nazis , Karol Woytiwa the young seminarian who had lost everything could see the martyrdom endured by Pius XII. If you have difficulty understanding this, then its superfluous to continue.

          • Anton

            but I’m disputing with you, not Karol Wojtyla. Use his arguments by all means, but saying that someone else said so isn’t an argument.

  • Philip

    Roman Catholics lean towards IN.

    From the Bishop of Rome speaking to the European Parliament, 2014:

    “In addressing you today, I would like, as a pastor, to offer a message of hope and encouragement to all the citizens of Europe.
    It is a message of hope, based on the confidence that our problems can become powerful forces for unity in working to overcome all those fears which Europe – together with the entire world – is presently experiencing. It is a message of hope in the Lord, who turns evil into good and death into life.
    It is a message of encouragement to return to the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent. At the heart of this ambitious political project was confidence in man, not so much as a citizen or an economic agent, but in man, in men and women as persons endowed with transcendent dignity.
    I feel bound to stress the close bond between these two words: “dignity” and “transcendent”.
    Pope Francis.

    • “At the heart of this ambitious political project was confidence in man.”

      Does he mean to say that their confidence in man is such a good thing? As Christian leader it was his duty to remind them of Psalm 118:8 (KJV): “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.”

      As Carl suggested below, these were the very sentiments behind the construction of the tower of Babel. No wonder the EU parliament in Strasbourg resembles Pieter Brueghel’s painting of the tower of Babel. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves…” Genesis 11:4

      • ” … not so much as a citizen or an economic agent, but in man, in men and women as persons endowed with transcendent dignity.
        I feel bound to stress the close bond between these two words: “dignity” and “transcendent”.”

        For goodness sake, read the speech …..

        • My point is that it might have been better if the Pope had chosen to honour God. What does “persons endowed with transcendent dignity” mean? Is there any biblical basis for this statement?

          • Pope Francis was referring to man being made in God’s image and therefore having a dignity above mere secular human rights.

          • Anton

            Which is true, but not a reason to have confidence in man because the image has become distorted by sin. Scripture could not be clearer that man is not to be trusted.

          • Read the speech ……….

          • Anton

            I read the extended passage from it which you quoted above, presuming that this made the point you wished it to make. Please give a link to the full speech and I’ll gladly read it.

          • Anton

            He might have added that you can’t reform the social conscience without reforming millions of individual consciences.

          • I agree.

          • That’s what he was alluding to here:

            ” … it is vital to develop a culture of human rights which wisely links the individual, or better, the personal aspect, to that of the common good, of the “all of us” made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society. In fact, unless the rights of each individual are harmoniously ordered to the greater good, those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will become a source of conflicts and violence.

            To speak of transcendent human dignity thus means appealing to human nature, to our innate capacity to distinguish good from evil, to that “compass” deep within our hearts, which God has impressed upon all creation. Above all, it means regarding human beings not as absolutes, but as beings in relation.”

            This is a cracking paragraph:

            ” I am likewise convinced that a Europe which is capable of appreciating its religious roots and of grasping their fruitfulness and potential, will be all the more immune to the many forms of extremism spreading in the world today, not least as a result of the great vacuum of ideals which we are currently witnessing in the West, since “it is precisely man’s forgetfulness of God, and his failure to give him glory, which gives rise to violence”. “

            It’s not the Gospel. If it had been it would have called for a return to God through Jesus Christ. But who would have listened? It is addressed to a gathering of politicians and wasn’t intended to be an evangelical speech.

          • Anton

            That’s true, but I’d be a lot more explicit about saying the social conscience can’t be changed other than by changing the individual conscience en masse and then challenge them with a question about how, and say that Islam is an existential threat to Europe. I don’t approve of politicised churches but if you find yourself the earthly head of one then that is your job, for heaven’s sake. The Renaissance Popes were corrupt but they understood who Europe’s political enemy was.

          • Except Francis is attempting to move away from that model and wants to become more like a pastor. As he said:

            “In addressing you today, I would like, as a pastor, to offer a message of hope and encouragement to all the citizens of Europe.”

            Happy Jack would much prefer it if the Pope was far more direct and on message with clear Catholic teaching.

          • Anton

            In that case he should indeed be preaching the gospel, even to politicians!

          • Jack agrees. However, he has made it clear he is not one for proselytising. Strange for a priest and even stranger for a Pope.

        • Having read the whole speech, I have to say the Pope did make an effort to draw people’s attention to the importance of Christianity – in a circuitous way. This is to be expected from someone who performs the dual roles of statesman and religious leader. It is still sad that someone in his position could not do more – provide a more vigorous defence of the faith.

  • Albert

    This post looks like more anger than wisdom.

    The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church customarily issue guidance at election time, but one wishes they would respect the democratic intellect of British Roman Catholics.

    I cannot for the life of me see how this statement does not respect the democratic intellect of British Catholics. As any theologically informed Christian knows, in applying Christian teaching he must use his conscience. And the conscience must be formed by listening. Thus, this statement respects the democratic intellect of British Catholics by informing their consciences without compelling them.

    And the CofE will do the same, and quite rightly so.

    For the record: I think I will vote out.

  • The Explorer

    Off the subject, but it looks as if Bob has deleted himself. Watch out for the next avatar.

    • CliveM

      “Curiouser and curiouser” cried Alice (she was so much surprised that for the moment she quite forgot good English)’

      I wonder why this time? Maybe he’s just got bored.

      • Pubcrawler

        Well ‘Bob’ was a more boring persona than ‘Linus’.

        • CliveM

          Bored by repetition I think. He stopped saying anything new, a long time ago.

        • Their posts really didn’t differ too much but Linus included more biographical information which was more interesting. He’s forced to hide himself now which means we’re just left with his hate filled trolling.

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘Linus’ was a lot more histrionic, whereas ‘Bob’ was more concentrated bile. The purpose was essentially the same, though, and easily spotted within a very few posts.

          • True ….

          • dannybhoy

            I lost interest after the revelation that Linus was not genuine..

      • carl jacobs

        Linus wants to hurt. His purpose here is to inflict pain. It’s the wounded reaction to his commentary that he craves. He can only get that reaction if we treat him seriously. As he becomes known, and we stop responding with substance, he loses the ability to achieve his goal. So he deletes his persona and starts over.

        He deletes his old comments to cover his tracks. It prevents comparison of posts between personae. He doesn’t have to be so careful in what he says.

        Just my perception.

        • CliveM

          Yes, although usually there is a trigger.

          He shouldn’t be hard to spot. He’s a bit of a one trick pony.

        • It may have been precipitated by the fact no one responded to his last post as Bob. We’ve become bored with him. He is a hate filled person.

          Jack believes Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of “ressentiment” (where one demonizes a good one feels unable to attain) is a key to understanding him. He is trapped by a sense of hopelessness. This is why he is so compelled to hit out at the Catholic Church and at Christians and, in particular, more traditional Catholics. They represent all he wilfully refuses to be. Catholic guilt and awareness of sin is a powerful force even is self defined atheists.

          As Saint Augustine’s said:

          “I was sighing, all bound as I was, not by external chains, but by the chain of my own will. The enemy had possession of my will, and in this way he had involved me in a chain by which he held me bound. An unlawful desire is indeed produced by a perverse will, and in obeying an unlawful desire a habit becomes established; and when a habit is not restrained it grows into a necessity.”

          Now this suggests there may be some hope for him in the future. Let us pray the scales fall from his eyes.

          • dannybhoy

            Good post there Jack.

        • Andre´Kristian

          Good man! We are presumedly dealing with a very disturbed person. I shouldn’t wonder if he is afflicted by a morbid shyness of society and experiences an acute need to exercise some form of revenge. I assume that the only way to squelch this malefactor is to neglect him. When he wasn’t enough skilled to answer and refute my rejoinders, he asserted that my linguistic abilities were disqualified and incomprehensible. (I hope not, haha!)

          • Cressida de Nova

            Well he was right about your linguistic ability. You are obviously not a native English speaker, either that or you are a moron !

          • Andre´Kristian

            Your sweet rejoinder is of no importance. Nice try! You and Bob should join forces. Your intellectual capacities appear to be quite compatible. Let yourself go and have a little tea party for spinsters! Women’s ways do not belong here, wherefore I venture to say good bye. You won’t receive any further comments.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Golly..a home spun psychologist as well as a home spun Christian…You inflict pain, Carl, with all the cringe making rubbish you spout on here. I hope you don’t think you are making an impact on anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

          • carl jacobs

            I know what I have been told – in public and in private by people I know and by people I don’t know – over the ten years I have commented on the internet. I am content with that testimony.

            If Grutch said to me what you just said to me, I would be devastated. There is not a commenter I respect more. But Grutch has never said that to me. Trust me when I say that if he ever does, I will respond to his criticisms with speed and faithfulness.

          • Cressida de Nova

            How pathetic that you need to boast of favourable commentary from the internet. Denotes doubt which in your case is justified. You really should refrain from responding to my occasional critical comment of you…You have stated so many times that you are going to ignore me by not responding blah blah blah …And yet you still do… not a person to be taken seriously obviously! Unlike you, Belfast ,is a well adjusted Protestant Christian intellectual
            Sadly you are deficient in three of these characteristics.

          • carl jacobs

            Have a pleasant evening, Cressida.

    • carl jacobs

      What about how Carl felt about being compared to Bob? The wound was grevious and there will be scars.

      • The Explorer

        Yes, it was an awful thing for HJ to say.

        • carl jacobs

          Truly he should be groveling for my forgiveness.

    • Tsk … just as he and Jack were reaching an understanding too.

      • The Explorer

        Never mind; you can develop the cordial ties established with his next persona.

        • chiefofsinners

          Look out for an identity beginning with G in order to give himself the full set of LGBTI.

          • Very good ….

          • The Explorer

            Very perceptive: that certainly does seem to be the pattern behind the choice of names. (The Japanese one was too brief to be significant.) Hope he’s not read your comment, or he might break the pattern. But even if he does, he’ll soon make himself apparent. An encounter with happy Jack always seems to be revealing.

          • One wonders if he was ‘pushed’ by our good host. Bob’s one comment on this thread, following Sarky’s remark about half empty churches, appears to have been removed rather than self deleted.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Simplicity is indeed a Christian virtue. Sadly you are confusing it with simple mindedness. Insight… obviously… is not one of your strengths !

  • Pubcrawler

    OK, far out! How’s that, man?

    • CliveM

      My blood runs cold.

      • Pubcrawler

        You’re so un-hip. Get with the groove, daddy-o!

        • CliveM

          This is a blogging equivalent to dad dancing!!

          • Pubcrawler

          • CliveM

            Yes, quite!

          • Cressida de Nova

            LOL

  • Inspector General

    Farwell, Lord Parkinson. You would have made a decent Prime Minister as Maggie’s heir. Well, until ‘that pregnancy’ was announced, that is.

    That the fellow never visited the resulting child strongly suggests to the Inspector that the happy event was not planned. Or if it was, he wasn’t in on it…

  • len

    The EU is profoundly anti Christian but pro Catholic. Says it all to me….

    • Inspector General

      Just as well that nobody expects too much from you Len…

      • len

        Just the truth, thought you might like a glimpse of it now and then..too much truth at once could tip you over the edge.I mean further over the edge……
        Glad to see you are still looking though……

    • Yep …. the EU is so pro-Catholic it’s about to outlaw abortion, homosexual ‘marriage’ and Sunday trading.

      • len

        Why does the Pope want you Catholics all in then? Perhaps the Pope is really a protestant in disguise?. Hows that to add to your list of conspiracies?

        • Anton

          In other words: Is the Pope a Catholic?

      • The Explorer

        Interesting. Do you have sources for that? (I’m not suggesting you don’t, I’d just like to follow it up.)

      • Busy Mum

        My reading of history is that the RCC preaches very loudly as to what God’s morals are, whilst taking advantage of human weakness…It is in the interests of the RCC that people do stray morally because the RCC has always offered itself, rather than Christ, as the balm for a guilty conscience. The EU simply does the RCC’s dirty work.

        • Ah, got it. The Catholic Church supports the EU because the latter encourages sin and thus drives men into the evil clutches Rome as they seek forgiveness. A dastardly plan.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I always thought Not Busy Enough Mum was an intellectual giant !

          • Busy Mum

            Couldn’t have put it better myself!

  • Royinsouthwest

    The correct response would be to send the Vatican a copy of the speech by Queen Elizabeth I to the troops at Tilbury when England was expecting an invasion by the Spanish Armada.

    • Anton

      This speech, which she delivered wearing a silver breastplate over a white velvet dress:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_to_the_Troops_at_Tilbury

      • Ivan M

        Boedecia? What happened to the powdered bosom, with which she tried to take over the cult of the Virgin Mary? Mighty good propagandist I must say.

    • Why on earth would the Vatican want a copy of this speech?

      • len

        might learn something?

  • So, popery, communism, big business and Blue Labour are all agreed we should continue in the EU.

    It figures.

    • “Popery” …. how terribly quaint,

      • chiefofsinners

        I think he meant potpourri. It’s nonconformist slang for incense.

      • len

        Nothing ‘quaint’ about the Roman Church .’Quaint ‘is about nice old ladies which the Roman Church definately aint!.

    • Anton

      On the rare occasions when I have been undecided about an issue I look at who is supporting which side.

    • IanCad

      And the educational industry.

      • ….and the ‘green’ industry, the sexual revolutionaries, the immigrants, the welfare industry and various other statists. Against such a potent coalition I am resigned to a swindled ‘Better keep a hold of nurse, for fear of finding something worse’ in vote.

  • chiefofsinners

    If you were an out-and-out ‘leave’ campaigner, who would you want on the other side? The Vatican must come pretty high up the list. Who else? Who are the seven hillocks upon which this woman might sit? Jeremy Corbyn, Tony Blair, Nicola Sturgeon, David Cameron, Donald Tusk and some fat capitalists? An unholy alliance if ever there was one.

    • So, let’s see if Jack understands you. One of the reasons you want to leave the EU is some half-baked interpretation of Revelation and a notion the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ?

      • chiefofsinners

        Yes, I thought you’d enjoy that one.
        If I can’t have Rome as the antichtist, can I at least have Donald Tusk as one of the horns of the beast?

        • Anton

          While I reject the papacy as the antichrist/beast of Revelation and reject the Scarlet Woman of Babylon as the Roman Catholic church (I believe the woman is either a New Age religious system or the endtime financial system), I consider it possible that a future Pope will be the False Prophet spoken of therein – the spiritual henchman of the antichrist world dictator in a global scale re-run of the Pope/Holy Roman Empire partnership.

          • The Explorer

            Interesting. I’d include Islam as a possible candidate, if the focus of the End Times is the Middle East rather than Europe.

          • Anton

            The worst aspects of women are seduction to evil and the worst aspects of men are bullying and violence. New Age and finance are clearly feminine spirits, but Islam isn’t.

          • dannybhoy

            There is support for Islam as being the beast and the mahdi as being the anti christ..
            Among them “The Islamic antiChrist” by Joel Richardson

      • len

        The evidence that there is something dreadfully wrong at the heart of Roman Church cannot have escaped anyone with an ounce of discernment surely?

      • sarky

        Seen ‘spotlight’ yet jack??

  • David

    The support that many in the hierarchy of the established Churches express towards the EU is based upon a vague, lofty and very non-analytical approach to the question.

    Once you start to look behind the vague idealistic sounding expressions that organisations like the UN and EU utter, and analyse the machinery of governance, and the money flows, it soon becomes obvious to anyone who believes in a gentle egalitarianism, or democracy in any meaningful sense, that these organisations are about focussing power upwards in the hands of the elite few. The constitution of the EU reeks of elitism.
    Many senior institutional church leaders have little experience of practical life and are soon duped by these highly impractical and vague expressions of “niceness” and apparent idealism. So they close their eyes to the reality of what is happening and shelter behind the ideas and theories. Maybe also there are a few who like the idea that the few should rule over the many, offering them only a facade of democracy.

  • IanCad

    Now you see it. Now you don’t.
    I swear, I absolutely swear there was a long, deep post of great erudition and complexity – just a few minutes ago. I speed read it and wondered quite how it was going to advance the cause of independence.
    Theorizing and history lessons matter little now. We were emasculated long ago.

    • CliveM

      You mean by our host?? I thought that to.

      • IanCad

        That makes me feel better Clive.
        Overheated imagination, excitable, delusional, fantasist – dead. Sure glad you saw it as well, or at least, thought you did.

        • CliveM

          Unless it was a type of infectious delusions!

          But no I saw it. Wonder why it was pulled?

          • sarky

            Infectious delusion on a christian site…oh the irony.

          • CliveM

            See…………

          • The Explorer

            It happens a lot, given that you’re a frequent visitor.

          • The post was “pulled” because it drew attention to the fact that the Theos report was financed by the European Parliament, and so (not unreasonably) vulnerable to allegations of perceived pro-EU bias, to which the author of the report strongly objected (alleging, quite unreasonably, “cheap ad hom”, taking it as an attack on his integrity). He was essentially arguing that the EU should return to its ‘Christian’ roots, and would thereby be a force for good and moral leadership in the world. The article disputed this. Four hours work ditched, but life’s too short to quibble with defensive and over-sensitive researchers.

          • CliveM

            Thank you for the answer.

          • Uncle Brian

            I’m sorry I missed it. It must have been a good read.

          • IanCad

            I wish I had a better memory, or at least be more attentive UB.
            There was an awful lot to digest.

            I seem to remember something about Boris Johnson and the dream of Rome. A bit of Bernard Connoly and the rotten heart of Europe. Adenauer , Schuman, Monnet – all referenced. I’m not sure De Gasperi was mentioned. Pius was. Democracy, the Referendum (Dreadful Idea IMO) Elitism, and of course that dreadful word of Papal provenance – Subsidiarity.

            A good, long post that would have attracted at least five hundred comments, I’ll bet.

          • IanCad

            It seemed a post of at least four hours YG. I wish I had read it slowly; or had a better memory.

          • Anton

            Your Grace may be able to recycle a good deal of it in the fullness of time.

          • Inspector General

            I say Cranmer, the Inspector read enough of it to get the gist of it. He was struck by your summary of the reports author’s somewhat woolly and feeble and childlike wishful thinking (that is the Inspector’s words to describe the author’s thinking, chaps, not Cranmer’s).

            For this intangible and probably unobtainable end he gives us, we are expected to:

            Ditch the pound sterling

            Hand over our sovereignty to the unending Franco Germanic hegemony going on in the EU

            Pay the damnable bills their corruption costs.

            Abolish the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Airforce. The latter two being the only military organisations in the world that does not need the country’s name in their title to identify them.

            Tear up British law and adopt the code Napoleonic.

            Cram in as many down on their luck Europeans who can make it to these shores

            Be a dumping ground for a few million muslim refugees and or their wretched children (once the Germans start to ‘move them on’ out of the Fatherland)

            Catch the precious resource of fish from the sea and throw half of it back, dead…

            One could go on, you know…

            And your man complains of ‘ad hominem’ !!!

  • len

    Should anyone be advised by the RCC?

    Some of the proponents of the RCC on this site seem outraged at the suggestion that the RCC had links to the Nazi Party and had even endorsed some of the goals of Fascism particularly as to the opposition towards Communism by Fascists but this goes even further with the links between the Italian Fascist party and the RCC. Indeed the Vatican owes it revival to fascist powers.

    http://biblelight.net/wound.htm

    • Anton

      Under the 1929 Lateran Accords reached between Pius XI and Mussolini the papacy gave up its claim to be secular ruler of a large part of central Italy including Rome. It received freedom for the Roman Catholic church to function in Italy, including freedom for the Pope to leave the Vatican without fear of arrest; these freedoms had been absent since 1870 when Italy was unified. The Vatican also received a financial settlement of 750 million lire plus 1000 million more in Italian bonds (a total equivalent to about 1000 million US dollars in 2013).

      The papacy was scarcely a thorn in Mussolini’s side throughout the 1920s and its claim to secular rule was taken seriously by nobody. So what did Mussolini get out of it? The answer is not written in the Lateran Accords but became clear weeks later: political support. Mussolini, who had turned Italy into a one-party State, went to the polls in what was effectively a plebiscite on his regime. On March 17th 1929, one week before voting, the Vatican’s daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano published an appeal for all Catholics to vote Yes, leading the way for the Catholic press to do the same in the next 7 days.

      In 1932 Pius XI received many hundreds of priests who were accompanying a fortnight of Italian Fascist youth group exercises around Rome, during which those priests wore hats bearing a cross superimposed on the fascist emblem. In 1935 Mussolini invaded Ethiopia. Many Italian bishops preached the merits of the war from their pulpits and their pens. Pius XI had deep reservations about this action but never did he voice them publicly.

      If you make a pact with this world you will be bound to it, however, and Pius XI found the constraints he had placed himself under increasingly irksome. At the time of his death he was planning a repudiation of Mussolini, the sticking point being the treatment of ethnic Jewish converts to Catholicism and in particular their marriages. (Mussolini couldn’t have cared less about this but he acceded to pressure from Hitler for the sake of the alliance between them.) Pius XI died days before he was to have given that speech and distributed it to his bishops. The copies were found and his intentions covered up; almost all of them were destroyed before the conclave by the man who became the next Pope: Eugenio Pacelli, Pius XII. Months later World War 2 broke out.

      For more detail see The Pope and Mussolini by David Kertzer.

    • Inspector General

      One of the advantages of your squalid sectarianism, you filthy insect, is that you don’t have to be too bright. Indeed, it is advantageous for you to dwell in ignorance. So allow the Inspector to put you right on a couple of issues. The industrial north of Italy was teeming with Bolsheviks. It still is, in case you didn’t know, which you don’t. Fascism was the natural answer to godless communism at the time, and yes, the Inspector would have proudly marched down the streets in his black shirt, and you, for all your posturings would have kept your mouth shut!

      • carl jacobs

        The Fascists were not morally superior to the Bolsheviks, Inspector. They were both simply fighting over the same turf. They both created rivers of blood. If the only natural response to Bolshevism at the time was Fascism, then Europe would have been better off consigned to colonization by Africa.

        • Inspector General

          Fascism came about as result of what was going on in Russia, Carl. And what nearly went on in Germany, and what did go on eventually in the countries next to Russia. And you say, at the time, Fascism was not the answer? Of course, hindsight is wonderful (Do forgive the Inspector, he normally only uses that phrase for the edification of thicks like Len).

          So you see, at the time, Fascism was morally superior. In fact, if we still lived by it, feminism would never have taken off, and we would be living as God intended us…

          As for abortion, the abortionists would be serving long years in gaol, those we didn’t hang…

          • Anton

            May I remind you that Nazi actually stood for National SOCIALISM?

          • IanCad

            Rivals and competitors more than ideological enemies.

          • Anton

            Yes, Putin has transitioned seamlessly from one to the other.

          • Inspector General

            May the Inspector inform YOU that the name of the party that Hitler took over was already named…

          • Anton

            And very happy with it he was…

          • Inspector General

            You’re an intelligent man. Read how Europe took to the Bolshevik revolution at the time. They murdered a royal family, and thus were capable of anything…

          • Anton

            You said that fascism came about as a result of what was going on in Russia. The rise to power of fascists in Germany had nothing to do with that and everything to do with German domestic politics following the Treaty of Versailles.

          • carl jacobs

            And the economic impacts of Versailles, and the Great Depression. Hitler saw Bolshevism as a Jewish phenomenon that would be destroyed as a consequence of destroying the Jews. He sought to replace the inferior races of the East with Germans in order to create a new self-sufficient German super-state. He wasn’t reacting to Bolshevism. He was envisioning a new Germany.

          • Anton

            You’re preaching to the converted, Carl. Tell the Inspector!

          • carl jacobs

            Yeah, I was just adding to your point for the Inspector’s benefit.

          • Inspector General

            Google ‘Frei Corps’

          • Anton

            I know who they were. Your point being…?

          • Inspector General

            If you need to ask the point, then you don’t know what they were about…

          • Anton

            This is a public forum and I’d like to see what point you are making before I reply to it.

          • chiefofsinners

            The Freikorps grew and gained popularity partly because of fears of Bolshevism in Germany. History is a tangled web.
            Why don’t you both Google Godwin’s Law.

          • Anton

            Don’t mention the war!

      • len

        You would have fitted in well Inspector…..

        • Inspector General

          There is a line in the dirt. Very close to where you stand. Cross it, and you are in the territory of calling on Catholics to be persecuted for their faith. Is that what you are about, the born again version of Julius Streicher?

          Most naturally, you will not be taking part in the doings. No, you’ll stand at the side with your sandwich board and cheer on the thugs who come to your call. You are, have been, and always will be the most obscene of bigots. Those who do what they do in the name of Christ.

          • len

            The only’ line ‘is the one you have crossed when you sided with the forces of fascism. Making false accusations will not help your case .. in fact you have dug a hole and revealed your true nature which has nothing to do with Christianity quite the reverse in fact…You have made my point perfectly as to where the RCC stood in relation to the forces of evil.

          • Inspector General

            You really are the thickest of arses…

          • IanCad

            In the spirit of amity for both you and Len.
            http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/yad-vashem-honors-italian-cardinal-who-rescued-jews/
            We all go round only once. Merit on both sides.

          • Inspector General

            One appeals to Cranmer. If he wants to keep his site par excellance, he’s going to have to ban Secondary Modern types like Len. He banned Julia Gasper for her obsession with homosexuality, so removing aforementioned nuisance for his anti Catholic bigotry should be less of a problem…

          • IanCad

            I’m a Secondary Modern chap myself. We don’t have to stop learning when we leave school.

          • chiefofsinners

            Most people don’t start until they’ve left school.

          • carl jacobs

            Are you accusing Len of anti-Catholic bigotry for saying …

            the RCC had links to the Nazi Party and had even endorsed some of the goals of Fascism

            … when you yourself say …

            Fascism was the natural answer to godless communism at the time, and yes, the Inspector would have marched proudly down the streets in his black shirt

            I find this (shall we say) inconsistent.

          • Inspector General

            Fascism was the new kid on the block then…

          • carl jacobs

            It wasn’t hiding its light under a bushel. Are you saying it was excusable to be a Nazi in 1933 but not now? If so why would Len be bigoted for pointing out what you would consider an historically understandable mistake?

            [For the record, I am being hypothetical. I do not see an historical connection between Rome and the neo Paganism of Nazi Germany.]

          • Inspector General

            Let’s se what ‘Democracy’ has gifted us. Abortion, Divorce, Same Sex Marriage, Mass alien immigration, Armed Forces at their weakest since the early 1920s, Abolition of the death penalty, social benefits for those too idle to work.

            Now, what’s that you don’t like about Fascism….

          • carl jacobs

            So, two things.

            1. Should I take this reply as an admission that your complaint about Len’s alleged bigotry was incoherent?

            2. About this…

            Now, what’s that you don’t like about Fascism

            You mean besides the fact that it was a bloodthirsty neo Pagan assembly of murderous gangsters that left something like 30 million bodies in its wake – and planned to kill substantially more? Are you serious with this question?

            Wait. Ask Avi. I bet he would have a better answer.

          • Inspector General

            You have to take yourself back to the time. The future of Germany was being decided on the streets of Berlin. Communist or Fascist, it seemed to be.

            Fascism is now discredited. Note the ‘now’

          • And in Spain? Geographical expansion, war mongering and the murder of Jews isn’t inherent to Fascism. It’s key features are an authoritarian central state, a mixed economy and a nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. It arose in opposition to Liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            May I infer from this that you generally support the Inspector’s position? I find this hard to believe so please clarify.

          • Inspector General

            Incredible! You really are dense at times Carl…

            One merely offset lovable but treacherous fascism against lovable but treacherous democracy…

          • carl jacobs

            OK. I admit it. I’m dense. Does anyone have any idea what the Inspector just said? A little help here?

          • Horses for courses …. there is no one political system suited to all times and all contexts.

          • carl jacobs

            No. I’m pretty sure that isn’t the point he was making.

          • Well we know he isn’t the most subtle of debaters ….

          • carl jacobs

            What the hell are s “loveable but treacherous Fascism”?

          • Pass.

          • That isn’t what Jack wrote or implied, is it? The evil nature of Hitler’s ambitions was plain to see given it was openly stated in Mein Camp. The point Jack is making is that Fascism isn’t the same as Nazism.

          • carl jacobs

            Hitler stood atop a highly competent state. Mussolini stood atop Italy. That might also have something to do with the difference. In any case, the Inspector has obviously not made that differentiation on this thread.

          • Inspector General

            {Ahem} Hitler stood atop a BANKRUPT state. All those weapons produced 1933 onwards to be packed in grease and recovered in 1939 were all produced on tick…

          • Andre´Kristian

            I might be considered as a Machiavellian madcap,
            but according to my resolute opinion, there are three major threats against “we, the people”, namely the muslim invasion, the overpopulation and the moral degeneracy.
            A jolly good amendment of the law, in order to prevent the alien intuders from their cocky spread of a venomous doctrine, synonymous to nothing less than devil-worship, would be a decent political deed. (The first in many decades.) Let´s guard and maintain our Christian principles and demand an efficient crisis-period policy!
            Should this excellent guide, the educational system included, displease and upset our bearded visitors, running around in nightshirts, they are dreadfully welcome to perform a swift exit and leave our European territories.
            The overpopulation is another modern tragedy to combat. Certain racial species must be regarded as less fit for breeding and their ridiculous habit to multiply requires a gigantic effort to correct.
            Coercive measures, such as castration, will be a future reality. A herculean piece of work!
            As for the morally disabled, there are some good old laws and spiffing directions to be reintroduced. To sum this sketch up, the multicultural helter-skelter misery, along with the gender diversification, are nonsensical and dangerous experiments DOOMED to fail.
            The latest idea pronounced by the LGBT terror organization, is something named “gender fluid”. Allow me to suspire and swoon… I could bet my pink feather boa that their next knavish trick will include humanoids.
            With a secretive smile from André 😉

          • Inspector General

            Astute observations, Sir! It is, of course, the fall of Rome being played out over again. The barbarians are well and truly here. Why, they’re even sending us their unaccompanied children to seed our destruction.

            2016 looks set to be the year of the tranny. But one suspects the next development to be womb transplants. Already, the more insane on Pink News are musing about two men having a child this way. Something to do with true equality. Nothing to do with being mentally deranged, they’ll tell you…

          • Nazism was one particular evil variant of Fascism – not its only possible manifestation. Sometime a strong, central, authoritarian state is required.

          • carl jacobs

            Ah. I see. Especially when that strong central authoritarian state is harmonious with the RCC. You aren’t helping your case against Len, right now.

          • Who cares? It was right for Spain and probably saved Italy from chaos and communism. That Mussolini joined with Hitler, unlike Franco, could not be predicted.

          • carl jacobs

            Here is what you seem to be saying. “It was OK for the RCC to support Fascism as long as the Fascists were killing the right people.” The problem for Rome is how to distance itself from what Fascism eventually did. “We supported the good parts” isn’t much if a story, though, is it.

            You are arguing for a benign facism. As long as it is Roman.

          • In Spain and in Italy the Church supported what it considered to be the “Common Good” as understood by its teachings. In both countries it predicted mass slaughters of innocent people and the persecution of Catholics by either communists or anarchists and reacted accordingly. It based this on the evidence of both France and Russia. The Church never endorsed or supported Hitler’s policies or his particular brand of Fascism.
            And Jack can see situation where Fascism might prove necessary in nation states.

          • carl jacobs

            So you agree with me. You envision a benign form of Fascism that may be necessary for the common good. Tell me. Is that “common good” as defined by the RCC?

          • In certain circumstances where democracy is breaking down or cannot cope with some internal or external threat. And, is there any other authentic “common good”?

          • carl jacobs

            And quite frankly you should care. The Inspector making this defense is one thing. You making it is quite another. You are vindicating him by your responses.

          • But Jack isn’t defending Hitler or the rise of National Socialism.

          • carl jacobs

            I know that. But you are allowing a more reasonable form of the Inspector’s argument to be brought within the scope of legitimate RC apologetics. You are coming across as saying “Fascism is good when it keeps the RCC in a position of cultural authority.” It is a very small step to conclude from that assessment that Rome’s principal problem with Hitler was Nazi anti-Catholicism.

          • The Inspector is not distinguishing between Italian, Spanish and German Fascism. It’s not about the state killing the right people but about protecting citizens from mayhem and murder.

            Jack would say Fascism is acceptable when it protects and defends its citizens from social chaos. It is unacceptable when it scapegoats any minority group and then turns its power against them, or when it promotes the social and economic interests of one group over and above another.

            Rome’s ‘problem’ with Hitler was his murderous intent towards all who opposed his will. The Church never supported Hitler or National Socialism in Germany.

          • carl jacobs

            But Hitler – unlike Franco – was not a good son of the RCC. I could make an argument that Hitler meets your requirements of acceptable Fascism. I could likewise make an argument that Franco meets your requirements of unacceptable Fascism. What then is the difference?

            Tell me of a fascist government approved by the RCC that wasn’t also culturally Catholic.

          • It is interesting that it was a Protestant country that produced and supported the regime of Hitler and Nazism. It could have happened in Britain too given the support for him and his policies amongst the British elite at the time.

          • carl jacobs

            Here. Answer this question, Jack. Is there an acceptable form of Bolshevism? When you say “No” (and you will say “No”) please explain the difference without referring to atheism. Because if you talk about atheism, you are going to take me right back where I started – to the idea that Rome was supporting a cultural ally.

          • Bolshevism is one form of Socialism, like Nazism is one form of Fascism.

          • chiaramonti

            Quite. Pius XI is on record as condemning the Nazi persecution of the Jews well before the commencement of World War II. “Anti- Semitism is inadmissible; spiritually we are all Semites.”

          • More likely this: ” … the links between the Italian Fascist party and the RCC. Indeed the Vatican owes it revival to fascist powers.”

          • carl jacobs

            That doesn’t change anything, Jack.

          • Possibly not but the constant suggestion that the Vatican actively supported Hitler and Mussolini and facilitated their rise to power, and actually benefited from it, is rather irksome and historically inaccurate. Italian Fascism was initially supported by the Church, as was Spanish Fascism, because of the clear threat of communism and anarchism and the warnings from history (Russia and France) of where this could lead.

          • Julia Gasper wasn’t “banned” for any particular personal obsession: she was instructed to leave (and did so) after tediously repetitious insulting comments about His Grace, and fabricating streams of bile which, after consideration, were potentially libellous.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector stands corrected, sir. He received by personal email notification by said lady suggesting that she was. Of course, one did not question the essentials – banned or asked to leave. That is ‘suggesting’ back there. Please take note.

          • chiefofsinners

            Did someone called Linus appear shortly afterwards?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Len , everyone knows the Inspector does not uphold Christian ethic. His racist views along with other issues are the antithesis of Christianity. He labels himself Catholic but it is obvious that he does not believe in Catholic dogma. You are using him as an excuse to vent your anti Catholic rants. He does not represent the views of a Catholic. You know this anyway !

          • len

            I am not ‘using’ the Inspector for anything other than to try and understand how he gets himself into the bizarre position he often seems to find himself in on this blog, those who support his extreme views seem to do so for no other reason than he calls himself ‘a Catholic?’

            I believe the RCC to have invented a religion which has nothing much to do with Christianity and believe I still have free speech to be able to put forward my views. As fo ‘rants’ I leave that entirely to the Inspector as you can see quite plainly looking back through the posts.

            The’ Sec Modern’ remark interests me, is this a form of intellectual snobbery?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Jack and I do not support his views .Neither do the other Catholics. He is supported by Protestants and Jews who like being entertained by his pathetic outrageous Colonel Blimp impersonations.I suppose his Sec Modern remark is intellectual snobbery because you did mention at some stage you were a car mechanic and an insecure man such as he, would like to think he had some intellectual ascendancy over you.You are not the only anti Catholic on this blog and I do object to him targeting you with his contemptuous comments. It is cowardly and bullying behaviour.
            Anyways…I’m sure you take it all with a grain of salt
            PS
            Catholics are not monsters Len….if you were lying in the gutter…it is most likely, it would be the Catholic , who would not step over you, and extend a hand !

          • len

            As I have said before I have no problem with Catholic people only their religious system. I see the Gospel of Jesus Christ being buried under piles of religious dogma and believe people should have the courage to question as to what is of God and what is of man.There is perhaps no nice way of doing this and people do get offended but I would rather offend someone than agree with their deception ,this desire to be ‘compliant’ and non confrontational is probably partly why the church has been swamped by Politically Correct procedures.

            It was’ the educated elite’ who were responsible for attempting to suppress the Gospel because it threatened their own position (regarding Jesus and the disciples )and the same thing goes on today amongst religious groups.
            I am /was a panel beater repairing cars and proud to have been in constant work for 50 yrs and brought up a family and own my own house.
            it is perhaps those who have intellectual pride who cannot grasp the simplicity of the Gospel because God created the Gospel to reverse the effects of the fall which was caused by pride the same fault that caused Lucifer to fall and become Satan.
            The Apostle Paul said he regarded all his ‘intellectual’ wisdom as so much dung(being polite) to knowing Christ because pride puffs one up especially intellectual pride.

          • Cressida de Nova

            I may say Len, to your credit, that even though you have been insulted in awful ways on occasion by the Inspector ,you have never responded in kind . In fact I think you are probably a very kind person and there is certainly a shortage of that by many so called Christians on this blog.Ignore the Inspector’s nasty Sec Modern remark.He is a very ignorant unhappy and bitter man.

          • Inspector General

            He is such a kindly fellow that he has no problem in condemning the Pope as the Anti-Christ, and in considering you an un-redeemable papist who deserves to be cast into the pit of eternal agonies on your demise…

          • len

            I might repeat this once more because I know you have difficulty with this.
            You have offered me all sorts of insults but I have not responded in kind,why is this you might ask?.
            It is the Catholic’ religious system’ that I contest I have no problem with Catholic people who in my opinion are deceived.
            Please copy and paste this so I don`t have to keep on repeating this ad infinitum.
            I might add that you have alluded to your intellectual abilities (severely lacking in my opinion marked by your inability to grasp the simplest of concepts) so I will leave you to grapple with this?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Others here carry on about the whore of Bablylon, the worship of icons and the secret wearing of razor wire and crowns of thorns beneath our clothes before ten lashes of the whip before prayers every night etc.All too ludicrous and Monty Python for words.

            You only take offense at Len’s way out comments because he is an easy target .

          • Inspector General

            HE carries on the same. Hope you two are happy with each other’s company…

          • Andre´Kristian

            Such a pity one is unable to BLOCK disrespectful and conceited dry cows and cocky cobras here on Cranmer! Perhaps her inquitous accusations could be the result of some epizootic disease. Cry havoc, bold warrior!

          • Inspector General

            Ghastly woman runs on high octane emotion.

            Urrrghhh….

          • Andre´Kristian

            Stand strong and stalwart, my Lord lieutenant! I hate Your enemies as much as I… Well, I’m certain You’re quite familiar with all this by now. Yours respectfully, this day and for all eternity, A. ⚓️

  • Manfarang

    Schuman was born in Luxembourg and was influenced by his background in the
    French-German border region. Despite, or maybe as a result of his experiences in Nazi Germany, he recognised that only a lasting reconciliation with Germany could form the basis for a united Europe. Deported to Germany in 1940, he joined the French Resistance upon fleeing two years later. In spite of this, he showed no resentment when, following the war, he became foreign minister.
    In cooperation with Jean Monnet he drew up the internationally renowned Schuman Plan, which he published on 9 May 1950, the date now regarded as the birth of the
    European Union. He proposed joint control of coal and steel production, the most important materials for the armaments industry. The basic idea was that whoever did not have control over coal and steel production would not be able to fight a war.
    Speaking in the run up to 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the President of the Association of the Europe Foundation Giorgino Salina said it was now time to combat the rising anti-Christian attitude of EU bureaucrats, and praised the “spirit, ideals and hopes,” of the three men credited with founding the European Economic Community; West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Italian statesman Alcide De Gasperi and French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. The men, he said, were “three Catholic Christians with a great and clear awareness of the common good for which nationalist egoisms must be sacrificed, but also statesmen gifted with great political realism and wide vision.”

  • Manfarang

    The good old bad days of 1975.
    For the ‘Yes’ campaign – fighting to keep Britain in Europe – Harold Wilson lined up alongside Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, Roy Jenkins and Jeremy Thorpe. The ‘No’ campaign saw Tony Benn fighting alongside Enoch Powell, backed by the unlikely alliance of Ian Paisley, the National Front and the Communist Party of Great Britain.

    Today,the Morning Star is still anti-E U.

    With most UK-wide polls showing the result fairly evenly balanced between the ‘leave’ and ‘remain’ camps, the votes of Northern Ireland’s 1.2 million voters may prove pivotal. The DUP is the most eurosceptic of Northern Ireland’s various parties (founder, Ian Paisley, dismissed the EU as a “Catholic club”).

  • sarky

    If was like the gospels you would have waited a few decades to report it and then have made it up.

    • Anton

      There was no waiting: the gospel travelled by word of mouth without delay, and was written down for posterity when the generation that witnessed it started to die out.

      • sarky

        Chinese whispers

        • The Explorer

          Presentism. Read Plato’s ‘Phaedrus’ for insight into the accuracy of oral transmission in the Ancient World.

        • Anton

          It was precisely to prevent that, that the eye-witnesses wrote it down.

          • sarky

            Erm….I thought that had been proved otherwise?

          • The Explorer

            By whom?

          • sarky
          • The Explorer

            That’s not proof. His argument seems to be the unreliability of ancient material. If that’s true, proof is impossible, and he’s mot reliable either. Craig Blomberg’s ‘The Historical Reliability of the Gospels’ is a book-length refutation of the sort of arguments presented in this article. Dry as dust, but then data is like that.
            As a matter of interest, what was the last tune played by the musicians on the ‘Titanic’? Was it ‘Clair de Lune’, or was it Nearer my God to Thee’? If the latter, was it the British version, or the American version?

          • sarky

            With regards to your last paragraph – isn’t that the point I was trying to make? ???

          • The Explorer

            Yes and no. My reason for including it:

            1. An incident only a century old can cause disagreement.

            2. Motives can intrude. ‘Titanic’, for instance, uses the American version, regardless of the facts, because of the anti-British bias of the film.

            3. Everyone agrees that the musicians kept playing almost until the going down of the ship. Everyone agrees that the bandleader was Wallace Hartley. The last tune, in comparison, is a detail.

            4. Project yourself a thousand years into the future, and prove the Titanic incident ever happened.

          • sarky

            With regards your first three points, again you kind of prove my point.
            As for your fourth point, there is ‘evidence’, film and photos of the wreck and records.

          • The Explorer

            Don’t be so naïve. Film and photos and records faked by the Americans to discredit the British. Contrary evidence destroyed.
            Continue with the Titanic.
            1. Some said it split in two; others that it went down intact. Both versions are correct. It broke in half sinking, but the extra-strong band of metal along the bottom pulled it back together again.
            2. A sound like a fingernail along a blackboard. A sound like a thousand marbles. Which is right? Both: at slightly different moments in time.
            3. A gash 180 feet long. Wrong. The rivets popped, and the plates shifted. However, correct length for the damage.
            The slight variations are the evidence of authenticity. Total sameness is evidence of collusion.
            Two points about the article you quoted: Luke stresses he is not an eyewitness. Wrong emphasis. Luke himself was not an eyewitness, but he has interviewed those who were. How would anyone know about Joseph’s dreams. Well, Joseph himself may have been dead before the crucifixion, but those compiling the Gospels might have spoken to Mary…

          • Pubcrawler

            “Luke himself was not an eyewitness, but he has interviewed those who were.”

            Bit like Herodotus…

          • The Explorer

            Or, continuing the Titanic theme, like Walter Lord of ‘A Night to Remember’. He wasn’t on the ship, but he extensively interviewed survivors. He knew more about the accident than most of those actually involved in it.

          • sarky

            Way too many ifs, buts and maybes.

            im sorry but the bible cannot be accurate, not one bit is a contemporaneous account. Something doesn’t have to be true to spread and gain followers, just look at the modern equivalent scientology.

          • The Explorer

            “Something doesn’t have to be true to spread and gain followers.” Agreed: look at modern atheism.

            ‘Day of Infamy’ was written after Pearl Harbour. By your logic, it cannot be accurate: Walter Lord wasn’t even there. But he interviewed many who were, and co-ordinated their accounts.
            As Paul says, the risen Christ appeared to four hundred. His point: some of them are still alive; if you’re sceptical, go and consult them since they were contemporaneous. We can’t do it: we have to rely om history. But then, we can’t talk to survivors of the Titanic or Gallipoli any more. We have to rely o history.

          • sarky

            Was ‘day of infamy’ translated from one language to another and then another and then copied and recopied and recopied etc etc etc???

          • The Explorer

            Don’t change the subject. Your point is that for something to be accurate, it has to be contemporaneous. Walter Lord should have been there writing while the USS Arizona was being sunk. The fact that he wrote about it after the event invalidates what he says.
            Translation and copying is another issue. We can deal with it if you want to.

        • preacher

          A Chinese whisper that has lasted 2000 years & followers have died for & still are doing so ? Without the Fact of the resurrection, there would be no Christianity still in existence.

          Sarky my friend I know you must be lonely without your old mate Bob or whatever he called/calls himself & you’re maybe trying to hold the fort until he returns by poking fun at God & those that believe in Him, but trust me when I say that I feel you are out of your depth mate.

          • sarky

            Followers of Islam die to. Does that make islam true?

          • William Lewis

            There is certainly a spiritual reality to Islam.

          • preacher

            Everybody dies but only one was executed publicly, then returned three days later & proved it to the satisfaction of His followers so that they were sufficiently inspired of the Fact that they refused to recant even when their lives were forfeit.
            Islam or any other faith has nothing similar to offer, & you know it bro’.

          • sarky

            How is gods sacrifice (knowing that jesus will be resurrected) greater than an atheist dying to save soneone, with the belief that this is final?

    • CliveM

      Weak, very weak.

    • The Explorer

      In ‘I Corinthians’, dated 51AD, Paul mentions his earlier meeting with the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, to ensure that his teachings about the Resurrection matched theirs. Oral details about Christ were circulating almost immediately after his death.

      • sarky

        Don’t you see the problem in using the bible as proof?

        • The Explorer

          No, I don’t see the problem. We’re not talking about whether or not the Bible is true or not; we’re talking about dates.
          I agree that reliability can be involved as well, in that the longer it takes to record something, the more blurred memory is likely to become. We’re saying oral records began almost immediately after the Ascension, and that oral methods of recording information were a great deal more reliable then than they are now.

          • sarky

            Paul didn’t convert to christianity to at least 30years after jesus’s death, corinthions was 20 years after this.

            So you have someone writing at least 50 years after the event about something they weren’t even present for and you don’t see the problem?
            .

          • IanCad

            Sarky,
            You are wrong I’m afraid. Paul’s conversion was just a couple of years after the trial of Stephen. Maybe about 35AD

          • CliveM

            Probably thinks AD means After Death!

          • IanCad

            That is very funny.
            Sarky will get his revenge some other day. We’d better be careful.

          • The Explorer

            Paul’s reference in ‘Galatians’ dates his conversion within 33-36AD. He founded the Corinthian Church in 51AD. His death is not mentioned in the Bible, but is thought to have been under Nero in around 65AD. The years of imprisonment in Rome followed by silence support this.

          • sarky

            You haven’t answered the question.

          • The Explorer

            Unless your data is accurate, there isn’t a question; and I have no reason to believe that your data is accurate.

          • CliveM

            Remembering of course that Jesus died circa 33AD

  • Well, a Catholic as always can exercise his (her) God-given right to primacy of conscience here.
    Has the Pope made this an infallible statement? No. To the best of my knowledge there’s no more than a handful of Papal statements that class as infallible anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
    Did the Pope even say this? Nope. It’s his Foreign Secretary who’s no more infallible than any of us.
    Are you one of the five Catholics alive who actually believe in that pernicious idea of the “infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium?” Yes? Don’t worry. Can’t find this in any version of the Catechism, ever, Calm down.
    Do you still have a brain and a conscience? Fine. Use them.
    Are the non-Catholics finding this a cause for a spittle flecked nutty? Say something soothing. They’ll find more interesting things to rant about in five minutes.
    Am I going to regret posting this within an hour? Probably 🙂

    • len

      You sure your`e a catholic sister Tibs?

      The Inspector is ‘goose stepping ‘around down below so beware!

      • I’m a cradle Catholic, Len, we’re usually a lot more pragmatic than the converts. Nothing like being taught your Faith by an elderly Jesuit as a child to give you a healthy questioning mind and a clear idea of which cupboards all the skeletons are in. We don’t have our faith shaken when the next inconsistency comes around 🙂

        Doubt the Inspector will be remotely worried by this anyway 🙂

        • len

          I am a firm believer in challenging all things (even if a few sacred cows get treated unceremoniously)

          John and Peter both warned of false teachers, and Jesus said they may come to us in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15; 1 Jno. 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1). John said our duty is to “test the spirits,” and Paul said: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess. 5:21).

          • And all that means exactly what Len?

          • len

            Don`t trust the Pope or anyone who claims to have ‘a special authority’ test everything against the Bible as’ the Bereans ‘did.

          • Indeed and Jack’s reading of scripture is that God did indeed place a special responsibility and authority with His Apostles and their successors.

          • len

            I don`t dispute that Jack.

        • Cressida de Nova

          ” By an elderly Jesuit as a child” or some dotty old French nuns:)

          • chiefofsinners

            Linus? Is that you?

          • carl jacobs

            Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

          • That’s most uncalled for Chief. Cressida was referring to her own Catholic formation by religious Sisters.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Tsk don’t fret Jack… have been called far worse by Carl IG and Danjo on the blog. Remember…at one time others were adamant and convinced I was you …LOL. All I hope is that none of the said are allowed to mingle in public without supervision

          • chiefofsinners

            Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Away,you mouldy rogue, away !

          • Cressida de Nova

            You see him here,you see him there, you see him everywhere !
            I think they call it an unhealthy obsession.

    • Good post and no need to regret it.
      We’ll store this for another day, Tibs: “Are you one of the five Catholics alive who actually believe in that pernicious idea of the “infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium?”

    • Cressida de Nova

      It is up to the individual conscience how to vote. As far as I know the Catholic Church has never given a directive on how the congregation should vote.
      Good to see you here again Tibs.

      • seansaighdeoir

        Priests in our local church were urging the congregation to not vote UKIP at last years election.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Well if what you say is true…you should make a complaint to your Bishop in writing. Priests are not supposed to present their personal views as Catholic Dogma. I am not familiar with UKIP policy. I mean, is the UKIP urging you to kill homosexuals and Jews … to amputating limbs for petty larceny, to put chastity belts on your wives etc. I think this would be unlikely. If I were you I would most certainly question these priests . They are servants of the Lord and are accountable to Canon Law.

          • seansaighdeoir

            It was the final straw in a list of issues I had with the RC church. I made my protest by opting not to return.

            Whether the RC are servants of the Lord truly is something worthy of debate on its own.

            It should be I agree but it is something I strongly question now.

            I found the priests in our local diocese to be very willing to air their personal views but whether they were ‘personal’ or part of something larger we will never truly know.

        • Iamreplete

          Speaking as a man, an ordinary citizen, he is entitled to support whichever political party he chooses, with the proviso of responsibility. As a priest, he is miles out of line publically supporting, or not, any particular party. Perhaps, as a priest, he should refrain from publicising his political preferences, for fear that some simple soul might confuse his opinion with Catholic Dogma. In an entirely clerical setting it’s a different matter.

  • Sigfridiii

    First came the Vatican – then the Holy Roman Empire – then Stalin – and now the EU. Models with which the current Holy See is apparently comfortable.

  • Iamreplete

    As a lifelong Catholic, I’m well are that as an earthly channel of redemption, a sure route to God, my Church is uneqalled. How could this not be so, being, as it is, founded by Peter himself, acting on the direct orders of Jesus. However, as well as being spiritual, the Church is also temporal, human, and as such subject to human frailties. This can be well understood by a study of the Church’s history, and the monstrous sins committed therein. Today as in the past, the problems facing the Church are compounded by day to day politics. The question of whether or not any country should be in any particular political grouping is not a question for the Church to pronounce upon. That decision, for any country, is solely for it’s people to decide. As a Briton, conscious of history, I am inclined to think that on the basis of the historical record, Britain and Europe will both benefit beyond imagining by Britain’s remaining outside. The Holy Father, being born an Argentine citizen, living in Italy, head of the independent Vatican state, logically is not qualified to pronounce upon huge temporal matters such as EU membership, speaking upon temporal matters, which are matters for citizens of the EU and Great Britain to decide upon.

    • Cressida de Nova

      Yes, and as a Catholic you are free to make those decisions.

      • Iamreplete

        Absolutely true. Also true is that I’ll be accepting responsibility for my actions. We all will. That’s the way it works!

  • len

    Nice to see a sense of humour displayed

    • Andre´Kristian

      I must take the rattling opportunity to make myself clear! Yes, I am often known as a chirpy chap, however, it would be a regrettable mistake to interpret the actual comment as anything but completely sincere. Do I detect a certain impression of inferiority complex here, sir? If so, quite understandable!

  • len

    The EU is a last ditch stand to erect the Tower of Babel , a Godless kingdom erected by men who have done all in their power to marginalize or even eradicate Christianity.
    The fate of this enterprise has already been determined and those who clamour to be part of this have already placed themselves as being opposed to Biblical Christianity.

  • Cressida de Nova

    Your syntax and expression is woeful and ambiguous. If you are going to posture as an educated adult, you should really seek assistance from someone in your family who is proficient in the English language.

  • Article XXXVII of the Church of England.
    ‘The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.
    And a good job too.

  • Thomas Poovathinkal SSP

    The Church of Peter has the RIGHT to reclaim the wayward Church of England. We all need to pray for the Church of England.

    • Anton

      Let Anglicans argue that one with you, but do you think you have the RIGHT to persecute nonconformists like myself?

      • Thomas Poovathinkal SSP

        I am appealing to all those who LOVE Christ the Lord and his CHURCH.

        The Lord himself wised the UNITY of his FLOCK.

        • Anton

          That includes me.

  • Seadog

    After a long voyage from the Salvation Army (my father was the commanding officer of “the Rink” in Oxford Street 1943 – 1946 when it is was in the “Army’s heyday), I have gone through Anglican, Roman Catholicism.and now Atheism. At the age of 80 I have come to the conclusion that the clergy of any denomination aren’t that bright. Which is why most become preachy social workers without taking the responsibility that those who are do,.

    • Inspector General

      Outside of the RCC, thicks mainly. Just goes to show that the existence of God is down to the individual to appreciate. One has no trouble in that – the idea that we are where we are by sheer chance from nothing is laughable…

    • James60498 .

      Some clergy are thick and some are highly intelligent.

      A bit like their congregations and atheists too.

  • seansaighdeoir

    Final confirmation of the true nature of the RCC I think.

    Delivery into servitude of the NWO is well on course and this edict by the Vatican will ensure that a large amount of waverers will vote Remain in a few months signing away their own freedom and that of their countrymen may be enough to carry the vote.

    RC clergy were openly preaching against UKIP in last years election which was bad enough but this edict really illustrates I think its true self.