Monthly Archives: March 2011
When even a rather well-known Catholic blogger – up to now known for defending the indefensible on a couple of issues – starts to admit that ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols has not performed according to the expectations, one understands that the inability of said ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols to deliver even a modicum amount of Catholicism starts to be more than a disappointment and that it starts to be, in fact, rather a scandal een in the eyes of those who see themselves as moderates.
In fact, the tragedy of said archbishop is the tragedy of most of the Western and of the totality of the E&W hierarchy: the utter inability to be Catholic and to think and speak like one. Our contemporary bishops are rather a strange mixture between the hollow rhetoric of a David Cameron (more exactly: the pathetic attempts at rhetoric of a Gordon Brown) and the amusing exercises of Jim Hacker, the unforgettable “Minister/ Prime Minister”.
Bishops don’t talk about Catholicism anymore. ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols might even have forgotten altogether what Catholicism is (which, by the way, would be rather good for his souls’ chances the day he kicks the buckets, as we all must). You don’t hear him thundering against homosexuality and in fact he continues to tolerate the unspeakable scandal of the homo masses in Soho; but hey, talk to him about bankers and see how he gets all excited…..
We live in times (as one of my idols, “Sir Humphrey Appleby”, famously said) when politicians talks like religious leaders and religious leaders talk like politicians. Both talk nonsense of course, but I’m sure it sounds well and in the end this is what counts. I blame Kennedy’s inaugurations speech, the first time a politician dared to say to his electors that they shouldn’t pose any obligation on him and became extremely famous in the process.
++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols lives in a world where abortion kills 200,000 a year and the womb has become the most dangerous place to be, easily eclipsing war zones. He has witnessed the disintegration of British society through the widespread recourse to divorce and easygoing, taxpayer-financed, future securing teenage pregnancy. He has seen the mockery of the family through the legalisation of so-called civil partnerships and has ad the nerve to say that he was not against, and that the Church’s opinion on the matter is “nuanced”. He presides over a society where no Hollywood comedy thinks it can do without the obligatory faggot and the BBC even has the temerity to re-write the recent rendition of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead revisited” in very pink tones. He sees every day how every kind of monstrosity (from old couples, let alone old men, adopt children to the renting of uterus to the slow crumbling of opposition to euthanasia) gets a foot in the door of British society, and he complains about ……bankers! Again, this is a religious wanting to be a politician at a time in which politicians want to speak like religious (our unforgettable “Clown in Chief” clearly leads the way, as to equate the protection of family with the protection of homosexual unions surely must take the biscuit).
The simple truth is that the bishops of E & W deserve the sack. All of them, with no exception. Here in Blighty there is no bishop of whom you could say that he isn’t a coward, and no bishop you would trust with the nerve of starting a battle like, say, the Italian church has started about Euthanasia. Or take the buses with the atheist advs: a huge controversy in Italy and something our English and Welsh bishops wouldn’t even considering worthy of a serious discussion. in the end, it all comes down to the cojones and our bishops’ lack of the necessary material is both very sad and rather remarkable.
“Unfit for purpose”, I think is the technical term. At this point, they don’t deserve our sympathy anymore.
They deserve the sack.
And so there is this chauffeur having to drive me home from the airport. The chap has serious problems with the language of Shakespeare (and no, I may be a foreigner but I have no big problems with it) and therefore the conversation is very, very restrained.
Still, once in his car several objects attract the passenger’s attention:
a) a strange Hindu deity in the form of an elephant (have heard of him; forgive me but I can’t be bothered to look for the name now);
b) what seems to be a small medal of the Blessed Virgin, and
c) a cross hangling from the rear view mirror that at closer inspection appears to be, in fact, a small crucifix.
Under normal circumstances I’d have politely enquired as to the religious persuasion of the man and, if the opportunity had arisen, I’d have started with my little “sales pitch”. The circumstances being what they were I – exceptionally – decided to just shut up.
This forced me to think, and there were only two possibilities coming to mind:
1) chap is a bit of a “belt and braces” type and, whilst still superstitious, decides to enlarge his small pantheon to Christian characters, in order to hedge his bets.
2) chap is slowly coming to see the truth of Christianity and whilst he can’t still get rid of cherished figures that have accompanied him all his life, he has got the Christian message all right.
As I have said, I’ll probably never know the truth. Still, it was very interesting for me to remark that the brand of Christianity either embraced or “hedged” by the chap was very clearly Catholicism (this in a country with at least six Anglicans for every Catholic). Be it as it may, I couldn’t avoid playing with the idea that, in that chauffeur car, the Holy Ghost was silently but constantly at work.
A Hail Mary for the chap is certainly in order and let us hope that one day he will – if he hasn’t done it already – come to see the strange elephant only as a souvenir of his childhood.