Something is happening in this once proud country. If not an awakening – we are far away from that – a refusal to become completely asleep to Christianity, and reason.
The Coalition For Marriage is now happily sailing toward half a million signatures. For an initiative never mentioned on the BBC or Classic FM (5 million listeners a day, the latter; and a news desk drowning in socialist champagne) and supported mainly by internet tam-tam and mailing lists, there’s enough to deprive a giant like Margaret Thatcher of sleep, let alone a pigmy like Cameron.
Cameron’s problem is that part of his party insists in not wanting to become Liberal-Democrat and seems, rather, intentioned to remain Conservative. This is a big problem for him, because if they wake up to the fact they are Conservatives, they’ll realise he isn’t.
On the matter of so-called “gay-marriage” (by which an allegedly Conservative government started to sound proposal not even about the if, but about the how of the measure; if they’re Conservatives, I must be Muslim) things seem not to go very well for our dear Chameleon.
It would appear Tory MPs are terrified, and are imploring – or rather, demanding – that Cameron allows the thing to die quietly, with the least possible loss of face.
This is a typical English way: in theory I want to do something, in practice I let it be. This way, I try to smuggle myself as the right guy for both camps. Alas, I doubt it will work for Cameron, because he is now damaged goods among his own MPs, who slowly start to realise prostitution doesn’t let you stay in power for long, and it’s bad for your soul.
The “warnings that a Tory rebellion in the Commons would eclipse last year’s EU referendum revolt, when 81 Conservatives defied the Prime Minister” is perfectly credible, as whoever follows British politics knows Cameron went out of the confrontation as damaged goods, with his reputation as leader shattered and now firmly in the viewfinder of the (really) conservative wing of the party.
MPs have been so stunned by the scale of the protests that a secret group has been set up by Tory MPs at Westminster to force Mr Cameron to back down. Many of the MPs admit that the ‘avalanche’ of letters from the Tory grass-roots was forcing them to change their views.
This is embarrassing but, I think, credible. Tory MP have been stunned at knowing there are still Christians around, and at the discovery they are still enough to make them unemployed. Some of them, not having morals of their own, have decided to embrace the morals of their constituents, as their jobs depend on them. Therefore, they have told Cameron he should stop being silly, and pretend to believe in God once in a while.
A Tory MP put it this way:
‘It is clear from both my postbag and the Coalition for Marriage petition… that a significant body of opinion in our city and up and down our country share my views.’
Sign the petition here.
This is possibly already more signatures than homosexuals in the United Kingdom.
One wonders. Food for thoughts for that idiot Cameron, and (once?) Conservative MPs.
I do not often link to the page of a Protestant blog, but this time I really had to make an exception.
Cranmer‘s fisking of our teflon-coated Prime Minister is not only spot on in the matter, but it has the great merit of clearly telling the readers Cameron is as fake and hypocritical in his show of Christian feelings as he is in
pretty much everything else.
Cranmer “fisks” the Chameleon’s Easter address, that is: is dissects his speech taking phrases that he comments. Let us see an example:
This is the time when, as Christians, we remember the life, sacrifice and living legacy of Christ.
This is actually the holiest period in the liturgical year, Prime Minister. And Easter Day is the day we remember the Resurrection of Christ, not his ‘legacy’. Politicians tend to be concerned about leaving us with a legacy: the Son of God was concerned with offering us eternal life. Yes, that’s a legacy of sorts. But what’s wrong with the word ‘Resurrection’? Does it stick in the PC-pantheistic throat a little? Is it a bit too literally theological? Or mythically laughable? After all, carpenters tend not to get resurrected very much in Coalition Britain, so it’s probably safer to allude to some generalised ‘legacy’ rather than risk inciting Richard Dawkins and his intolerant secular-humanist hordes and being classed as a ‘nutter’ who believes on ‘conjuring tricks with bones’.
Or you might enjoy this:
The New Testament tells us so much about the character of Jesus; a man of incomparable compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love.
Yes, yes, but the New Testament tells us so much more than that, doesn’t it? Let’s not forget his uncompromising assertions of truth, his anger, his sharp tongue, his sternness and absolute intolerance of hypocrisy. What about the Jesus who was physically violent in the Temple? What about the Jesus who spewed out verbal abuse when the Pharisees criticised Him for healing on the Sabbath? And it’s not very Christian, is it, to curse a fig tree such that it ceases to bear fruit? That wouldn’t go down very well in Witney Garden Centre. Jesus told us to suffer the little children; not abort them. He told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more; not find a lesbian partner and marry her. And he taught quite a lot about money, greed and hell, but they’re not so fluffy and pink, are they? Jesus was an Orthodox Jew, Prime Minister. An awful lot of what he did and said may seem utterly antithetical to the modern, decontaminated Tory understanding of ‘compassion, generosity, grace, humility and love’. Love demands truth, or it is not love. And sometimes the truth is unpalatable, and people tend not to want to hear it. Especially if they’re politicians.
It is worth your while to read the article in its entirety. Notwithstanding the disastrous title of the blog this chap would, methinks, make a good convert. He certainly has managed, in the midst of his error, not to lose sight of the basic tenets of Christianity. The rest of his contributions – I have perused the site a bit, I confess – is of high quality and an interesting mixture of religious and political comments. This is a rather known blog, and is obviously followed in political circles. Let us hope that “Cranmer”‘s activity gives a contribution in exposing the purest example of Pharisaism of our time.
Hat tip to His Hermeneuticalness.
Juventus-Fiorentina, Italian Serie A. They are playing as I write.
Juventus scores a goal. After a couple of minutes, the TV (Italian sender, of course) shows a replay of the Juventus manager, Conte, making the sign of the cross.
Italians appreciate these things. By all advance of secularism, it’s in the blood of the country.
Two short considerations:
1) Would the BBC have picked this beautiful moment and showed it in replay? Thought not…
2) Would this be allowed on a British football ground? If yes, for how long? In the end, Cameron government’s would tell you it is not obligatory for a Christian to make the sign of the cross when his team scores a goal. Therefore, it shouldn’t be allowed in the work place, right?
Food for thought, I think…
The Government plans to oppose the case, presented by two British Christians, in which they demand the right to wear a Cross at work.
This is, says the Telegraph, the first time the Government is forced to say where it stands on the matter.Not, mind, out of its own initiative, but because the relevant documents were leaked to the Sunday Telegraph.
Note that the angry reaction came from the former so-called Archbishop of Canterbury, Carey. and from others among his colleagues, whilst prominent Muslims (Rowan Williams) and heathens (Vincent Nichols) do not seem, at least to my knowledge, equally vocal.
This is, though, the last example of how Cameron’s Government actively wages war against Christians.
And this moron should call himself, and be called, a Conservative?
What a joke.
On the Catholic News Agency, we are depressed with a very lame intervention of ++ “Quisling” Nichols and Smith about the defence of marriage.
I will, just for today, charitably assume ++Nichols is really interested in protecting marriage.I know, it’s pure fiction, but for the sake of reasoning.
On the one hand we have the most sluttish Prime Minister the United Kingdom has seen in a long time. A man able to invent phrases like the one that redefining marriage be good, because encourage individuals to “make vows to each other and support each other.” In Cameron’s world (but no, really: he is a just a whore. He will say what he thinks will sell, is all) “vows” and “support” are something good in themselves. With this brilliant reasoning, vows or support among criminals, or terrorist, or child rapists would be just as good. Not only is Cameron a moral vacuum; he is just a cretin.
On the other hand, we have our brave heroes. One would expect these heroes to take the sword and say to Cameron that in a Christian society, good and bad are decided according to their compliance with God’s rules, not according to their sounding good as a slogan or in headlines. Therefore, talk about “commitment” is utterly senseless unless it be commitment to something good, & Co. As a result sexual perversion, which obviously flies in the face of Christianity as even a whore like Cameron very well knows, cannot qualify for any kind of protection, or be considered “good” or “positive” in any way whatsoever.
Now, the problem our two not so brave heroes have is that in order to do this, one (particularly Nichols) needs to have the proper track record. This is simply not the case.
In the case of Nichols, the record is as follows:
‘We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,…………‘As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.’
The entire armoury of political correct bollocks is there. The only element which is absent is that this institutionalised perversion, which the Archbishop even considers good (“protection and legal provision”) should not be called marriage. A man with this track record can, of course, never defend with any credibility either marriage, or any other Christian tenet. He is just a heathen masquerading as a Catholic, and uttering some timid meowing when the necessities of the job command it.
Before you say that I am too harsh, please read again the words mentioned above and then tell yourself in conscience whether anyone who had dared to even think such words in, say, your great-grandmother’s environment (you can pick any European country, Catholic or Protestant) would not have been considered a heathen, and a completely rotten one at that.
Vincent Nichols reminds me – and here I ask the ladies to gently look somewhere else, and not want to read further – of that kind of girl once not so uncommon in Southern Italy, who would specialise in oral sex but would consider herself still virtuous because, technically, a virgin. In the same way, Nichols goes all the way in bed with Cameron (and if I wanted to press the simile, I could press it farther) and the heathen society the latter has prostituted himself to, but he possibly considers himself still virtuous because, hey, he makes one or two lame press conferences in defence of marriage.
Some days ago, Father Ray Blake posted the text of the letter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Peter Smith about that logical impossibility some people call “homosexual marriage”.
It was, at that time, not clear yet whether the Abp would instruct the priests to read the letter during the homily. It appears this was the case, so let us say two words about this.
To say that the text is lame is still not enough to do justice to it. This text is not lame, it is outright cowardly. Whilst (semel in anno) ++Nichols even defends (at least formally) the Church’s position on sexual perversion, it is very clear this letter is meant to do no harm, and to let everyone with a bit of salt in his head understand the real message: “we are not going to prepare ourselves for a fight; please understand we must make some rumours for the sake of the job, but really, you can count on our collaboration”.
Listening to the letter this morning as it was read in the church I, again, was confirmed in my analysis of the text: weak to the point of complicity.
If we had Christian bishops in this land I would not need to point out this is not a discussion about the opening times of pubs, or about the proposed abolition of the 70 miles/hour speed limit. This goes at the root of a Christian society. In every country in which the bishops fear hell, this would occasion such a conflict to let Mr “Chameleon” Cameron understand that with his politics he has made a great number of enemies for himself; some of them influential, some of them wealthy, all of them now fully determined to see him out. Not one tenth of this is happening now in the UK. On the contrary, “Quisling” Nichols and Archbishop Smith are, in fact, reassuring Cameron no war will be waged.
This attitude reminds one of Paul VI who reacted to the Dutch Schism by writing to the bishops and explaining them how they were supposed to think, without taking further measures. Clearly, such a behaviour confirmed the Dutch bishops they had nothing to fear, and the schism went on for many years until JP II, after several years of pontificate, decided that perhaps the time to act had arrived.
Abp “Quisling” Nichols’ letter now has the same effect: it persuades everyone the way is free, because the Church will not give battle on this.
The despicable, cowardly, unChristian mentality behind this behaviour is the more contemptible because on the other side is not a paladin of some strange secular cause, a man of conviction, one who would even welcome and relish the fight. No, on the other side is the most shameless whore of British politics in the XXI century; one who wouldn’t have any qualm in throwing the legislation in the rubbish bin the second after he realises it can harm him. It would be fairly easy to persuade him he can have the numbers, but he doesn’t want to have the sworn enemies, and this is going to be his grave in time. Prostitute that he is, Cameron would immediately understand the refrain and start talking about the recovery of traditional values, & Co. Even before he came to power, they didn’t call him “chameleon” for nothing. Also, Cameron’s position as party leader has already put heavily into question, and he certainly doesn’t wish a renewal of the troubles of the last months.
So, we are now facing a battle where the main opponent (the Church) has already said – in so many words – he doesn’t want to fight. Opposition will come from other corners, and the battle will not be so easy for the once blue, now pink “Conservatives”. If the Church had put herself “at the head of the movement”, the conservative fringes of the Anglicans would have been motivated in putting a harder opposition – or be more effective with it – whilst it would have been easier for real Conservatives within the Party to express their disagreement in a definitive way – like “get rid of it, Dave, sharpish” – rather than now having to fight an uphill battle.
This was so bad, it can only have come from Abp Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
But seriously, I wonder how blind and deaf are those in Rome, and how long will it take before they get rid of this bunch of cowards and give us Bishops who believe, erm, all that the Church believes.
David Cameron is a little harlot of politics, the slut of every movement he thinks can help him to get or stay in power and the prostitute of every political or pressure group he thinks is in his way of reaching his aim. Like the real slut, Cameron has a calling for sluttishness: his is not the behaviour of the politician who, obtorto collo, accepts some of the sad realities of democracy, but the enthusiastic adherence to a lifestyle for which prostitution is the only way, and the satisfaction of his perceived paying client the most natural behaviour on Earth.
One thing Cameron loves to do, is to please sodomites. Whilst not being – for all we know; and it wouldn’t be the first time we end up knowing we knew it wrong – a sodomite himself, in his relentless pursuit of political prostitution he seems to think the so-called “gays” are a wealthy, well-paying client of his. In Camerons’ world, there is no downside in lending his political backside to those who, well …. He will get the enthusiastic support – or so he thinks – of a group perceived as “influential”, without causing the ires of Christians. He thinks he will only need to mention the usual mantras of XXI century’s Britain (“tolerance”, and the like) to keep the ones well under control whilst he makes himself beautiful with the others.
It might – just might – appear this game is slowly going to an end. Cameron has already expressed himself in favour of the recognition of sodo-“marriages” (I do not mean “civil partnerships” here, which in my book is pretty much every bit as bad; I mean the full monty) delighting, as always, in being more “progressive” than Labour. He thought – as he is certainly well justified in thinking – the sums would add up and he would easily brand as intolerant neo-fascists everyone who dared to go against his “new Tory”, lavender mantra.
It might – just might – not be so easy.
First of all – and this must be said for our friends overseas, who might be justified for not closely following the events in what used to be a proud Empire, and now has his soldiers taken prisoners in Iran – Cameron’s position has been rather wobbly for a while. Whilst there is no open revolt – yet – it is clear the man grates more than some within his own party and is very probably more popular among his girlfriend’s acquaintances than among his own Members of Parliament. The unprecedented humiliation received just a few months ago in Brusseler matters – another topic where he thought he could silence the opposition with some barking and some trite slogans – ended very badly for him and showed the desire to get rid of him is much bigger than he himself expected. He survived the shock, but he survived in the same way the Chinese Empire survived the British (and French) march on Peking: badly, and with his reputation irretrievably damaged.
How damaged, the next months will show. Cameron, who had started his last trollop-crusade on the recognition of so-called gay marriages, now finds himself if not positively attacked, certainly opposed by several sides: the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury (apparently, one who still cares a bit for Christian values; in striking contrast to Rowan Williams) has chosen open confrontation; among the MPs dissatisfaction is wells-spread; and even the Catholic Church now begins – as Vincent “Quisling” Nichols really cannot shut up anymore – to utter some timid meowing.
Cameron gave an interview to some sodomite magazine a couple of days ago, where he showed all the extent of his incompetence and confusion (I might write about it, but take it from me: a harlot who didn’t make her homework before meeting her client) but where he basically had to admit he might have to leave his MPs free to vote according to conscience about this. In plain English, this means he fears he can’t force them to follow the line, as he knows a second loss of face would possibly cost him the job.
What might be happening in the next months is that the country finally awakens and decides Toryism (and Christianity) can not possibly have anything to do with Cameron: whilst the so-called Church of England has pushed herself into quasi-irrelevance, she can still damage the conservative credentials of our little trollop, and if you add powerful sponsors and the revolt of rural England (which might well be in the card, though I wouldn’t bet my pint yet) things seem to look very bleak for him.
Prostitute that he is, Cameron will try to do what he always does: please everyone and look for the way of least resistance. But this is exactly his weakness: the man is not made for resistance, but wired for prostitution. He has no values, only clients. He will do whatever keeps him in power and if in order to do so he has to suck up to Neo-nazis, he’ll do so without blinking.
The petition in defence of traditional marriage, which started just days ago and already got more than 50,000 signatures could be a serious problem for Cameron, and his backers seem to be more organised and with bigger coffers than he bargained for. They don’t seem to be sufficiently focused yet, but if you can judge the day from the morning the potential is there, and the day a couple of powerful sponsors decide they want Cameron’s scalp and are ready to pay for it the game might become interesting indeed.
Cameron saw a bigger challenge to his un-Conservative ideology take shape in October and November. He reacted with a “triple whip”, the severest form of enforcement of party discipline known to the British parliamentary system, and in doing so he made for himself several dozen sworn enemies at no cost, and got a “bitch-slapping” of proportions never seen before. I wonder what he learned.
David Cameron is nothing more than a little filthy prostitute terrified of discovering his clients have deserted him. Let this become big enough, and don’t bet your pint he’ll try his luck again.
A rather long shot, I know, but stranger things happen at sea…
Incredibile dictu, even in the secularised, tepid, indifferent, “let’s be nice to each other” United Kingdom opposition is starting to form to the perversion of what is most sacred, driven from a Prime Minister for which nothing is sacred, but his permanence to power.
You can sign the petition here.
Please notice this might become more than a rearguard battle, as the number of people getting slowly but surely angry is – incredibly – increasing. More than 50,000 citizen have already signed, and the tom tom can make this thing become huge with – if they wake up to the huge lie called “David Cameron” – vast support in rural England, which is absolutely vital to the Tories’ permanence in power; or, more to the point, to Cameron’ s permanence at the head of it.
I will write about the situation separately. Please send the link everywhere, tweet it, forward it, mail it, let it come into the furthest corner of the British Isles.
I doubt Cameron will be stopped as I can’t imagine Labour not helping the lavender “Tories”; but he should be made to pay at least a high price, so that more and more people understand what a disgrace he is.
Please sign the petition.
One concept I shall never tire to express is that every Nazi needs to show himself sensitive. In fact, I do not recall many examples in history (the Vikings are certainly one; some Redskin tribes another; but these examples are few and far between) of populations and ideology making of cruelty an accepted part of social behaviour.
Generally, even the most cruel people will want to show themselves sympathetic, and desirous to help.
Take the killing of babies. Monstrous, right? Certainly so, until The Sensitive Nazi appears on the scene. Being he/she a Nazi, the child who is to be killed is conveniently put in the background, and substantially ignored. He is immediately downgraded to collateral damage of the Sensitive Nazi’s goodness. But you see, the Sensitive Nazi is so good: he thinks of the suffering mother, and will create pitiful stories about abortions obtained with the most atrocious means – in Italy the knitting needles are very popular for the purpose; apparently, in the UK cloth hangers are preferred. That a child should not be aborted in the first place is completely set aside, forgotten, ignored. This has the same logic as to complain that as your robber doesn’t have the money to shoot you in the head, he should be sympathised with when he skins you slowly with a kitchen knife, and we should find ways allowing him to kill you in a humane way and at no discomfort for your killer. With the not irrelevant difference that you are not likely to be killed in an extremely painful way by a robber armed with a knife, whereas an army of babies is killed in an extremely painful way by the likes of Planned Parenthood.
At this point, the Sensitive Nazi has already managed to put the real victim very much in the background, and to put in the centre stage the “suffering” of the one who wants to kill him. I know, there is no logic or humanity in this; but again, this is why they are Nazis.
Once come at this point, the Sensitive Nazi will proceed to introduce his plan by installments. Let us admit abortion only in some extreme cases, they will start to say. In case of rape, say. This is very interesting, because the Sensitive Nazis knows once you have put the foot in the door, there is no way to avoid, in time, a complete opening. If you allow abortion in case of rape, which girl who sees herself terrified by her pregnancy will admit she has, well, not been raped? And when you have decided that life is sacred, but not always, how will you avoid the ambit of this “disposable sacredness” to be widened more and more with the time?
As always, if you compromise with the principle at the beginning, you will end up losing the entire principle at the end: divorce in cases of horrible cruelty and bla bla becomes divorce at will; abortion only in strictly circumscribed cases becomes abortion on demand; decriminalisation of scandalous sodomy becomes “civil partnership” and from there, the step to the “homo marriage” is but a short one; next on a screen near you, the euthanasia initially practised with the thousands safeguards now promised everywhere becomes killing by order of those who are deemed to be in charge for the poor old man or woman.
You don’t believe it? Strange, because this is exactly what happens already in the case of abortion.
The Sensitive Nazi is around you. He talks in a mealy-mouthed way about being tolerant and progressive, and sensitive to the suffering of people. He will sell all that is Christian one bit at a time, telling you all the time how good he is. In England, he is Prime Minister and is planning to attack another mainstay of Christian civilisation – marriage – in order to show himself oh so tolerant, and sensitive.This, after he commented favourably a sentence forcing the Christian owners of a bed-and-breakfast to have sodomites under their roof.But you see, he presents himself as the “sensitive” guy all the time. Seriously: what a little Nazi bastard.
After the end of Communism, the Sensitive Nazi is the biggest single threat to Christian civilisation.
The new Hungarian Constitution has entered into force on the 1 January.
I have written about the matter here
I can vividly see the green faces of the BBC troops in commenting this. The matter must also be rather embarrassing for the Prime Pansy, Mr Chameleon, who says the country must go back to Christian values whilst actively promoting institutionalised sodomy. No doubt, he must think it very Christian.
I also wonder whether this Constitution (being Christian) is after the liking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, or whether he would have preferred a more “nuanced” position, for example making clear that civil partnerships are not in contradiction with Catholic teaching, as everyone knows there is, (erm, cough…..) no sexual intercourse involved.
May the Almighty bless the Hungarian people, and crush the wolves in sheep’s clothes.
Let us start the year with a clearly “insensitive”, “homophobic” Monthy Python video.
I can see our Prime Minister and his Prime Girlfriend taking this seriously, and praising it as an example of the new times….
Hat tip to Linen on the Hedgerow
I never liked Berlusconi. What I think of him, you don’t want to read here. But after following his political career for almost twenty years one thing has become clear to me: that this corrupted, corrupting, thieving, liar, bastard pig is an exceptional salesman and is, like all exceptional salesmen, obsessed with the satisfaction of his clients.
This is, in the end, what has kept the nano pelato (“bald dwarf”) in power all these years: even most of his voters have realised that he is a pig and a (former, at least) thief. But they also know that the man is well aware of who keeps him in power, and does his best not to disappoint them.
Italy has not only no homo-“marriage”, but not even “civil partnerships”. In a world where even Spain, Mexico and Portugal do not know better, this is an achievement. Italy is a country where crucifixes are still in every classroom and every court room, after the government had the gut to fight for them. Italy is still a country with a decent anti-euthanasia legislation, also because of the very controversial battle of this government. Make no mistake, dear reader: these achievement are largely not due to the Italian clergy, rather to a diffuse conservatism that knows that it is better to have a pig in power who serves your ideals, than a clean man who doesn’t.
It has worked, in a way (in Italy, almost everything “works in a way”), until now, where after months of rumbling the Vatican has started the steamroller and it is now clearly moving it in the direction of Berlusconi. Which in Italy is a serious problem, as proved by the fact that after a couple of days the dwarf still hasn’t picked up the gauntlet and declared total war. Never happened before, I assure you.
Let me say it once again: Berlusconi is a thieving bastard. But I hope Cardinal Bagnasco knows what he is doing, and I am not so certain he’s making the right calculations.
Let us examine the situation with a bit of coolness: the man is a pig, but he is largely at pain to keep his piggish behaviour outside of the public sphere. What comes out, comes out largely because of phone tapping, directly intruding into the life of a man for whom breathing and bragging are one and the same, or private indiscretions. Berlusconi doesn’t do scandal for the notoriety, or the desire to be considered a stud. Pig as he is, he is smarter than that.
But he should publicly repent, one might say. How hypocritical, and how Anglo-Saxon. In Italy the contrite politician going in front of the cameras and reciting the little tale of repentance for the use of the simple has no chance. If you aren’t really repentant, you had better shut up, is the thinking. Fine with me.
He could resign, they say. Fine too. But if we do not want to help the lefties to come to power – and make no mistake, with them in power the next battle against homo-“marriage” is on us, as sure as the “amen” in the church – there is no need for the Vatican to kick on a man already lying on the ground. If he is weak enough and the centre-right thinks it can do without him, he’ll be disposed of anyway. If the Vatican is decisive in his political demise, then the Vatican is involuntarily helping the leftists. Not good.
I have no doubt whatsoever that the centre-left can throw in the ring not one, but many candidates much cleaner than Berlusconi was the day he made first communion. But you see, I do not care in the least. My Christian values come before my desire for clean politicians, and that’s that. Millions, in Italy, think like me. This is the only reason why the man is still in power: he delivers. This is also the reason why no one on the centre-right side could bury him: no one is sure they would.
Now it can certainly be that you can have a strong centre-right coalition without the bald dwarf. I’d be the first to greet the event. But I do not want the Vatican helping anti-Christian values to spread, just because they aren’t very satisfied with the private virtues of one man.
And come on, this is Italy. People have a big mouth, and language is very, very imaginative. The more so, when people speak with friends and do not know that they are tapped. Even more so, when a pathological megalomaniac mythomaniac sex-obsessed old pig is speaking. Everyone knows it, even Cardinal Bagnasco.
Thief, corrupt, egocentric, megalomaniac, sex-obsessed idiot that he is, I still prefer him to Cameron every day, because with Berlusconi Christian values will be defended in the public arena, irrespective of what he does with them in his private life, or how gross is his bragging among friends. The man is an exceptional salesman. He’ll protect what is sacred to his clientele. He is very good at that.
Try that with Cameron, who kicks in the eggs middle-class England to please 0.5% of the population and try to court the Labour moderates.
If you ever had any doubt that David Cameron is the enemy of every Christian in this country, every doubt must have been dissolved after the chap revealed of being strongly in favour of so-called “gay marriages” and to want to start consultations to introduce it next March.
Cameron’s behaviour – certainly not approved by many among his own people, but very probably accepted as part of the effeminate cowardice now become prevalent within the once glorious Tory party – is fully in line with the Cameronian idea that bed-and-breakfast owners who do not want faggots to sleep more uxorio under their roof are intolerant, and with his blatant mockery of Christian values under the usual veil of being “compassionate”.
I will not say what I think of the man, because you know already and I would avoid becoming too explicit.
What I will follow with interest in the next months will be the reactions within: a) his own party (David Davies? Liam Fox?), the Catholic Church and, in case Christians are still among them, the Anglicans.
Let me say that I do not have much hope, as the first group have reduced themselves to street workers ready to do everything if it helps them to stay in power – learning from their boss, no doubt, who has been developing political whoredom to a fine art for many years -, the seconds are led by a clear – if not explicit for reasons of job security – heretic and supporter of sodomy, and the thirds have largely forgotten what Christianity is in the first place.
Still, you never know when the pendulum starts to swing the other way: in the United States the signals are increasing that the decision of the State of New York has been the event that will now start a massive offensive in favour of basic Christian decency (no: decency tout court) and it can’t be excluded that here in the UK this latest push towards institutionalised sodomy will cause the opposition to get organised and to become vocal.
I have said many times – and repeat now – that pieces of legislation like this deprive a country of his democratic legitimation -. Democracy is certainly not a bad idea in itself – Pope Pius XII was a great supporter – but when a democracy betrays Christian values, this democracy loses its right to exist. When the next British Franco comes out – and make no mistake, unless things change radically it is only a matter of time before he does – Christians will certainly not be on the side of such a democracy and those on the side of such a democracy will certainly not be Christians.
It is very naive to think that democracies are destroyed because some small clique of evil people manages to overcome the will of the peaceful, democracy-loving majority. On the contrary, democracies make themselves vulnerable and worthy of getting rid of because they fail to get the support of the masses on the secular plane, and/or want to defy God on the heavenly one.
The Italian democracy succumbed to Fascism because most people were perfectly all right with ditching the first and getting the second. The German democracy was defeated with utterly democratic measures, showing its failing of democratic legitimation in the most democratic of ways. The Spanish democracy died when it was clearly on the way to being substituted by an anti-Christian repressive apparatus. One sees analogies, for sure.
Cameron is working against Christianity, and he is working against the British democracy. He may think that whatever brings to him an electoral advantage in the foreseeable future works for him, but he will change his mind the day he dies at the latest, and his initiative will, in time, further alienate vast strata of the British population from a government system not seen anymore as being in tune with their own values.
In the meantime, you would expect that the Catholic bishops would rise up in arms and start telling Cameron very clearly to shut up and repent, nicht wahr?
Catholic bishops, yes; but no, not our bunch of heretics. They’ll meow a bit, if they really must, but that will be all.
The battle will be fought – and won – primarily in the United Stated. Old, weak, de-Christianised Europe will, as always ,follow.
If “my view” is all that matters in every subject at school, then by the time you reach Year 11 there is no pressing reason why you should not burn cars, throw stones at police and cycle round to loot shops if that is what meets your needs during the summer holidays.
These are the best lines I have read up to now regarding the freak show that London (courtesy of “hug a hoodie” Cameron) has become.
Read the rest at the site of His Hermeneuticalness.
Read on the once-conservative, now pinko-sexual and cameron-cutie “Daily Telegraph” this article from Christina Odone expressing her surprise at Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols not liking the concept of “big society” because, basically, it is not socialist enough.
Now Ms. Odone wouldn’t have hovered much around the “Telegraph” some twenty or thirty years ago – when the newspaper was seriously conservative, and seriously Tory – and the fact that she herself writes “I had never so much as flirted with the Tories until David Cameron came on the scene” tells you a lot about her (absence of) Conservative credentials.
Still, Ms. Odone understands the most important part of the matter, that is: that the “Big Society” concept is, in the way it is supposed to work, intrinsically Catholic. This is rather elementary, as the simple fact is that in Catholic thinking help to those in need must come from the mutual assistance of citizens moved by Christian charity, rather than from an administrative behemoth destroying charity and creating conflict and egoism.
The socialist state destroys charity because it doesn’t force them to voluntarily make an effort and give a part of their own to help those in need, but rather expropriates them of what is theirs. Similarly, the socialist state doesn’t instil in the needy the gratitude for the help charitably received by those better off,but rather encourages them to think of handouts in terms of their rights. This way, you have resentful rich and resentful poor, and the socialist state manages to keep the voters (the poor will always be more than the rich) always hungry after the next expropriation and thinking that they have the right to expect money not theirs to flow to them.
This is, as you have already understood, exactly the thinking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. His accusation of the “big society” lacking “teeth” basically means that he doesn’t like it, because this way the state will recede (a bit) from welfare expenditure and leave the citizen to organise themselves, activity which they will obviously do much more efficiently than the huge red tape machine craved by the Socialist state in order to promote entitlement thinking and provide employment opportunities for its minions.
That the charity of the citizen would provide for the (most immediate: no welfare thinking) necessities of the needy is something which doesn’t even cross ++Nichols’ mind. He is just too socialist for that. To him, “big society” makes sense if it provides even more welfare, but if it is used to utilise sensible citizen action in stead of senseless waste of resources and rampant entitlement thinking, he can’t approve of it anymore.
Archbishop Nichols is a socialist dressed as a socialist, talking as a socialist and giving interviews as a socialist. And this is just one of his many deficiencies.
I have written yesterday a blog post about Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that the Holy Father, by sending him to Westminster and by (for what we know) not considering his removal after the many disappointments he has given (homo masses continue undisturbed; clear support for homo partnerships; bullying of Cardinal Vaughan school are just three of the many), has acted and his still acting more like Pontius Pilate than like he should as the successor of Peter: putting the desire to avoid conflict and strife before the desire to do what he knows is right.
With the important difference that Pontius Pilate’s hand were bound by his superiors’ desire to avoid confrontation, whilst the Holy Father himself has no superior to whom he has to answer.
No earthly one, anyway.
Citizenship must be considered today within the context of globalization, which is characterized, among other things, by large migration flows. Faced with this reality, as I mentioned above, it is necessary to combine solidarity and respect for the law, lest they upset social life, and the principles of law and cultural and even religious tradition which formed the Italian nation must be taken into account.
The speaker is clearly saying: immigration must be allowed to happen in conformity of the religious traditions of the land. Read it again if you don’t believe it, it is unmistakable.
You will now ask me who is the author of such oh so intolerant, racist, non-inclusive (actually, positively excluding), discriminating words.
Nick Griffin, the BNP chef? Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader? Or perhaps someone from the newly constituted but rapidly expanding English Defence League?
You have lost, dear reader. The author of these words is a fellow called Pope Benedict XVI.
I can hardly imagine the scandalised reaction of our modern, inclusive, pro-everyone-and-everything, moral vacuum politicians a’ la David Cameron (our Prime Minister, now openly against Christianity) had the above mentioned statement come, verbatim, from any one of the chaps already mentioned; the outrage of the champagne sipping liberals and the cries of the professionally persecuted. But this comes from the Pope and it will be a little more difficult to attack him frontally, particularly after the success of his visit has shown that Catholicism is better ignored and undermined quietly (the bishops will take care that there is no reaction) than attacked openly.
True, the Pope was speaking to the Italian mayors, in a country that is far away from venerating every form of multiculturalism and whose open-heartedness to newcomers has always been within the frame of a clear expectation that they adapt to our customs. His job was, so to speak, easier there than it would be here. Still, it is good to notice that what in England is considered racist and non-inclusive is considered rather standard fare in Italy, and mentioned without any qualm by a Pope.
This gives you the exact measure of the PC-madness currently infesting Britain.
Two aspiring foster parents are denied the possibility because they are Christians.
The simple fact that they said to the officials that they would teach their children that homosexuality is sinful disqualifies them, says the judge, from adoption. This is a country with officially more than 30 million Christians.
The Prime Minister agrees with the decision.
I have already pointed out many times to the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, an atheist cretin trying to disguise himself as a Christian when convenient.
Cameron has now officially thrown away the mask, and this will do him no good. No doubt, in the next days he’ll come out with some slogan invented by some of his sleek, probably homosexual PR-“cuties” to try to repair the damage. The other hypothesis is that the man is so ignorant of Christianity that he doesn’t even understand what he is saying.
Cameron is an enemy of Christianity. He is an enemy of everyone of us. To support him in any way, shape or form is to help the enemies of Christ.
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.
Beautiful blog post from Father Longenecker about the attitude of Catholics (or those who call themselves so) regarding the problem they encounter in understanding or accepting Catholic teaching on various issues.
Father Longenecker puts is very well when he writes that:
[…] a difficulty is the attitude which says, “How can that be so?” whereas a doubt is the attitude that says, “That can’t be so.” The first is open, engaged, intelligent and searching the tradition in order to understand the teaching. The second puts on above the tradition and the teaching by insisting that one knows better than Holy Church.
Catholicism is not easy. Some of the truths therein contained can be disconcerting, seem to fly in the face of common sense and sometimes are, in fact, a challenge to our ability to accept the Truth. It is only normal that, put in front of them, the Catholic be at first (and before being properly instructed and guided) somewhat at a loss to understand and perhaps a bit lost altogether. What is not normal (for a Catholic) is that he reacts to his difficulties by appointing himself as judge of the validity of Catholic Truth.
A Catholic knows that he has to accept Catholic Truth. Every bit of it. If he has a problem with it, it is a clear sign that he must work in humility to overcome his difficulty. But he must realise from the start that the problem is not about who is right, but about how long will it take for him to understand why he is wrong.
The attitude cannot be: “I disagree with this, so the Church must be wrong”. This is as Catholic as Mohammed, or David Cameron. The attitude can and must be: “I must be wrong on this and I now want to understand why“. Without this fundamental humility (and fundamental wisdom) no spiritual progress is possible; on the contrary, our ego will give us countless excuses to indulge in our little power games. Just notice the smug undertones of all who say “I disagree with the Church on (put here a doctrinal matter)….” to clearly realise the speaker’s barely hidden satisfaction at feeling so important or rebellious or – funny, this – clever.
Credo ut intelligam, non intelligo ut credam. “I believe that I may understand, I do not understand that I may believe”. The acceptance of Truth comes before the full understanding of the Truth and it is what makes this understanding possible in the first place. It is through my humble acceptance of Truth that the instruments to understand it are given to me. My intellect, left to himself, will never lead me to the Truth, but will invariably become the useful idiot of my ever-expanding ego.
Before the open dissent comes a sin of pride; the extraordinary idea that Christ came on Earth and died for us, but somehow neglected to foresee that the Church would betray his teaching until we, oh so clever, come to its rescue; the idea that God is not able to found a Church which keeps His teaching intact, and needs us to cure Her from several centuries of misogyny, or homophobia, or inability to understand modern times.
As I have said, this attitude doesn’t sound very clever. Perhaps you can make this clear to the next wannabe church-founder expanding on how he wants to improve on Christ’s work.
If anyone had any doubt about the war on Christian values waged by a Prime Minister who dares to call himself “Conservative” and by his government, one doesn’t need to look further than here to understand the scale of the fraud perpetrated by Cameron & Co. against the solid Britons, those who still have values.
A country whose average citizen shows a level of ignorance of basic spelling skills that in most foreign countries would be considered bordering on illiteracy* finds it fitting to pervert its own children from kindergarten age. A country whose head of Government has the temerity of calling himself “conservative” embarks the country’s school system in a “celebration of perversion” meant at making the unacceptable openly approved or – as it is fashionable to say today – “celebrated”.
This government betrays the many millions of families who ask from it to at least not make their life more difficult in raising their children in the proper way. This governments sets to openly sabotage them and the values they share. There is absolutely nothing in the work of the government that could be even vaguely defined Christian anymore.
Not only we have to live with an openly atheist deputy PM, for whom the idea that the mother is the spouse best fitted to raise a baby is “Edwardian” (he means it in a derogatory way, of course), but we have to witness a Prime Minister that with one face says that he wants to protect family values and with another of his many faces says that two homosexuals are a family….. I can’t wait for the day when Cameron calls “a family” the marriage of his son with his dog and declares it wonderful news that makes him – as it is now also fashionable to say – “proud”.
If these abominations came from the reds, who are ideologically oriented toward the destruction of everything that is good and sacred, I would be very angry but I would understand the perverse logic of the events. But when those meant to protect the fabric of the country set to destroy it in such a way, even exploiting little children in pure Goebbels manner to further their rotten ideological agenda (Clegg) or their prostitution to fashionable trends (Cameron), this is really beyond comprehension.
The Conservative party has become the hostage of a totally value-free marketing man, of a moral vacuum with a posh accent who could sell his mother to whoredom wihout blinking an eye and call this “conservative”, and of an ideological fraudster of the worst kind.
God knows how much I hate Berlusconi, how much I am ashamed of the indecent spectacle he gives of himself and of the way he damages the institutions and the Country’s reputation (if any) abroad. But give me ten thousand times one who is intemperate in private and protects Christian values in his government work than a fake, despicable, slimy, oily, anti-Christian buffoon like Cameron.
* see the caption of the photo above; just one of too many examples.
I was sitting in front of the TV, looking at images of the Papal Visit. It was a dream so there were a lot of things that are not entirely rational, you understand.
The first thing I remember are the cars lined up at the airport waiting for the guests. A long line of midnight blue Mercedes S-Class and Jaguar XJs, with some Lancia Thesis in the back (I always liked that car, you know. These things always play a role in a dream). “Carabinieri” everywhere, in their usual perfectly elegant black suits with red stripes. Near them, the MET policemen with their yellow thingies and triple bulletproof jackets look like apprentice clowns. All cars have Vatican diplomatic flags and make a rather impressive show of power. Not “spit us in the face and we’ll be telegenic”-power, but rather “we can make the PM unemployed”-power. David Cameron looks slightly green.
It being a dream, at the center of the long line there is a wonderful Mercedes 600, also midnight blue. “Beautiful, that they have decided to use it again”, I think. The BBC commenter is saying that that is the car of the Pope, but the curtains don’t allow to look in. “Very good again”, I think in my dream, “this means that the years of the Pope trying to be a pop star are gone”. No “ice cream van-looking” Popemobiles in sight, with the Holy Father in it treated as if he was an exotic animal just come in from far away and you almost wait for people throwing peanuts at him. I breathe the air of dignity, of importance, of authority the long line of cars clearly conveys. The message is unmistakable. The Pope is not visible, but in everyone’s mind. Exactly his being not visible is what puts him so clearly on the stage.
And in fact, I seem to hear that even in the voice of the BBC commenter (it was a dream, so I knew that he was sipping from a finely etched champagne flute; but again this fact was totally natural to me, as if I wasn’t expecting anything different); there is in him a sense of awe, of occasion. His subdued, almost hushed voice is a clear sign that the long line of cars, the strange but awfully prestigious oldtimer in the middle, the obvious show of power, all demand respect in no uncertain terms. Much as he would have wanted to he can’t avoid feeling, well, rather insignificant. Being a journalist, he hates that.
He has prepared a long list of “reflections” about paedophile priests, wymyn “dissent”, priest celibacy, london buses and the like. They all sounded very intelligent and oh so progressive in a champagne-sipping way when he was rehearsing them, careful to get the right amount of patronising smugness in his tone. Now he realises that they would just feel stupid. Stupid like a petty quarrel put in front of the Mistery, or like a spoiled aggressive child trying to kick a splendid oak. The shamelessness of the display is in such contrast with the modern fake modesty he is accustomed to (PMs in jeans, or jackets without tie; fake informality; “I am just one of you”-atmosphere) that he is ten meters in offside before he even realises it. He knows that all this is wanted and he knows what everyone is thinking: this is not a PM playing “one of the people”. This is a glimpse of the splendour of Christ.
“Cunning bastards”, he thinks whilst sipping; still, he feels the awe and is fascinated by how it works even on him, against his will.
The helicopters continue to film the line of cars. The motorbikes are on both sides, huge crowds greet the Pontiff as the cars drive solemnly by; some close-up pictures show young women in girlish excitement, old ladies in tears , fathers holding up their children to allow them to see (it was a dream, so no health & safety madness here). They are driving along Constitution Hill now and making it all blue, and already the cars enter Buckingham Palace. Prince Charles is standing in the forecourt, in a traditional Arab dress, ready to welcome the Pope in his role as “defender of the faiths”. But look! The cars don’t stop for him and disappear directly – and with the magic of dreams – within the Palace itself. “They have probably not recognised him” says the commenter, astonished. He has been joined by another one. Being this a dream, the new commenter is Alan Hansen. As always, I can’t understand a word of what he says.
“Up to now” – says the BBC champagne-sipping but RP-speaking chap – “no one has seen the Holy Father, ahem, Pope Benedict” and bites his lip. He shouldn’t allow the pump to influence him, but he just can’t help it. “These people truly know what they’re doing”, he thinks. He knows this is the thought in everyone’s mind. “Bastards”, he thinks once again. But he knows he can’t help admiring their chutzpah. “I preferred JP II’s times”, he goes on reflecting. “Very telegenic, great audiences, no one cared a dime for what he said but everyone wanted to see him trembling. I would tell the audience why the Church is all wrong and explain how they can improve; all in a gentle, understanding tone not without symphaty for the less fortunate who believe in God. How I felt terribly superior! It doesn’t work anymore. Ah! Those were the days!”
It being a dream, I am now inside the Palace. The Queen is waiting for the Pope. She sits on a very strange throne made entirely of living Corgis, strangely sitting over each other and combined as to form a throne where she can comfortably sit. The Corgis all smile like the Cheshire Cat, but I know that the Queen doesn’t have any Cheshire Cat so they must all be Welsh Corgis. Suddenly, the Queen showing great energy jumps from her Corgi-throne (loud, but dignified yelping) and kneels at the feet of the Holy Father amidst the hushed expressions of dismay of the diplomatic personnel, saying in an extremely posh voice: “Holy Father, we want to convert to Catholicism. Please free us from this disgraceful sect of atheist madmen”.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is present, and feigns indifference. Strangely, he is Vincent Nichols. He wears a rainbow chasuble with a huge “peace” sign at the front. Nichols says to the Pope that the Queen’s opinion does not reflect his own; he informs the Queen that she is a Catholic already, only not Roman, because her accent would clearly betray her as British. “We all speak the same language of God, Peace and Love” – says he stressing the words and counting them with his fingers, as to indicate the Most Holy Trinity – “only in slightly different tongues, Majesty“. He then proceeds to invite both to the homo mass he organises every week in Soho. “Very inclusive”, says he, “and great fun! You should see their “Little Britain” parody during the liturgical dance, Mr. Ratzinger!”.
The Holy Father looks like he would have a good use for a Beretta 92FS (it is a dream, remember!) and it is clear that he has made a mental note. He doesn’t say anything.
And then we are outside again. It is a magnificent Cathedral and I recognise it, it is Canterbury Cathedral. It being a dream, I remember that last year it has been bought back from the Anglicans at a firesale price because the Anglicans need to pay the lawyer’s bill. I smile at the fact that I still haven’t grown used to the fact. But I remember very well that many E & W bishops were strongly opposed, thinking that the purchase offended the Anglican community and was nothing to do with “ecumenism”. They wanted to make of it a Muslim Cultural Centre instead.
I am in the Cathedral now, but again the cameras stay out. Out is also a huge crowd, spreading beyond the little town, vehicular traffic blocked since dawn. Alan Hansen is near me and is now commenting live for the radio but as always with him I can’t understand a word. I don’t care because I am in anyway. The Pope has not been seen by the crowds yet. There is a total refusal to make of him a “popular icon”. But the crowd understands that this is because he is so much more.
I am waiting for the Mass to begin now. Everyone is there. The Queen is there, the Corgis are also there but now they are intricately put together to form a furry pew. Cameron is darkish green in the face, Clegg is yellow. Brown is brown (yes, that brown) and must always be stopped because he continues to say “bigoted woman!” and “it must have been Sue!”. Blair is at the entrance, distributing books no one accepts. He gets an egg in his face instead. Lord Mandelson is near him, wearing a tutu and also trying to give away books with his photo. People look at him in a strange way. No one says a word. Evidently, they are all still afraid of him. And evidently, they are all English.
Vin Nichols has a portable Hindu altar and is planning to worship in front of it, but he is Anglican so my dream doesn’t particularly care for him. All twelve Milliband brothers are present as they are all candidates for the top job over at the party. Unfortunately, their mother has told them she’d vote for the Pope instead, so they are all rather downbeat.
The Pope is at the centre of the attention. Old, but not frail. Gentle, but nobody’s doormat. Subdued in tones, but I hear Cameron thinking (it is a dream, remember) “this is one I don’t want to have against me” and “I must ditch the homos; there’s no choice I am afraid; who cares for the bloody frockers anyway”.
The Holy Father delivers the sharpest, most threatening homily Cameron has ever heard; he informs the PM of the historical existence of Jesus; speaks about abortion, divorce, euthanasia, tolerance for sexual perversions, a country going to the dogs (the corgis all nod here, in a very dignified way). He also touches the issue of the eternal fire and everyone knows he sees Cameron’s soul on the line; but he makes clear that there is still hope. Cameron’s green becomes slightly lighter and he thinks that the worst might be over.
But then the Holy Father starts talking about bees and flowers and everyone understands: he is instructing Cameron on marriage; with goodness and patience, as you would do with a child.
All eyes are on Cameron. He is decidedly pea green now and his roundish face looks a bit like a watermelon. He feels like a Pakistani cricket player caught in the “News of the World”. Brown still looks like his party, with or without the twelve Millibands.
Change of scene again. The Mass has ended. The helicopter shows to the TV audiences the huge masses outside. I know it because it’s a dream. Cameron’s skin is now clearly of a very dark British Racing Green and he is visibly shaken. He trips on Nichols kneeling in front of his Hindu altar and utterly ruins his garland. Nichols is angry. “You bloody queen”, he murmurs to Cameron’s ear, but Mandelson is just there and clearly hears every word. Mandelson makes a mental note. Nichols shivers. Embarrassment all around. Nichols has a brilliant idea and invites him to his homo mass too. “They’ll love your tutu”, says he one instant before realising that this can be construed as a joke rather than honest brown-nosing. Mandelson makes another mental note. Terrified, Nichols turns to the other side where prince Charles sits now clothed in a Tibetan monk outfit (purest silk, you understand) whilst eating delicious orange biscuits “from the farm”, as he puts it. The Holy Father’s convoy is now past them. The Pope sits on a sedia gestatoria, a wonderful Tiara over his head. He goes out in the full light, still on the sedia gestatoria. The immense crowd sees him on the megascreens and goes “ooohhhh” and “aaahhhh”. All cameras are on him. The crowd has stopped rumouring. There is an unreal silence now. The Pope scans them with his kind, but intelligent smile. “Vell, vell, vell”, I hear him think (yes, I do; and yes, in English!), “Ve hef shoved ze Perfidious Albion zet Tsekularism is not ze vay”.
In the silence, a man runs to the Pope. He bows in front of the sedia. A hushed murmur spreads itself among the huge crowd, then becomes a roar of surprise. They have recognised him. Thin, bold, scared, frail, but now hoping. He is Christopher Hitchens. He asks for forgiveness, live on TV, in front of a worldwide audience. “I believe in God, the Father Almighty!”, he says very loud and in tears; then he starts to sob uncontrollably. It tears your heart out. Hansen says something but I don’t understand him. And now the Pope makes one calm, solemn gesture and the sedia is lowered down. The silence is unbearable. He goes near Hitchens, invites him to stand up and looks deep in his eyes. Very deep. The camera nearby takes an extremely close shot of both men’s expression; one is inquisitive, attentive, loving but not to be fooled with; the other is just scared, broken, but you can clearly see that for the first time in his life he dares to ask for hope.
The camera comes still closer, it is perhaps ten seconds but it looks like an eternity. Finally, the Pontiff makes a gesture. It is a blessing. Hitchens cries, the BBC commenters cry, everyone cries, Hansen cries and that even I can understand.
It is a triumph. Everyone kneels down and starts to pray. Rosaries pop out from a thousand pockets, only Nichols continues to stubbornly pray in front of the portable hindu altar and pretends he hasn’t seen anything, his loud OOOOOMMMMMM of defiance lost in the general outroar. The Pope is now led to the Mercedes 600 as the screams become deafening. The long line of cars starts again. The media have instantly spread the news of the conversion everywhere. The crowds on the roadside kneel and pray at the passage of the cars. The helicopters film everything. Seen from above, it is like a hugely long, interminable Ola. I see it from one of the megascreen outside, in the clamour of one thousand Hail Marys.
When everyone has gone away, the cameras take a short shot of one man, alone, sitting there in disbelief. He is Peter Tatchell. No one has noticed his presence.
Then I wake up. I try to fall asleep again and to continue the dream, as I remember I did sometimes as a child. But it is no use. Reality catches up with me with all its harshness.
Vincent Nichols is the Archbishop of Westminster.