I only want to highlight the BBC headline for this one:-
Is this not hilariously paradoxical?
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
Today we are seeing headlines like this one:-
Daily Mail – Celibacy to blame for sex abuse cases, says cardinal tipped for papacy
National Post – Cardinal claims celibacy linked to sex abuse
I’ve been informed that these headlines are misleading and that Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said no such thing:
Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has said that the broadening sex-abuse scandal indicates a need to re-think the training that priests receive. The Austrian prelate called for a thorough and “unflinching” discussion of the possible causes for sexual abuse by Catholic priests. No topics should be taboo during that discussion, the cardinal said; he called for a frank evaluation of how priests have handled the consequences of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s, and analysis of how priests are trained for a life of celibacy.
Several English newspapers reported that Cardinal Schönborn had said that priestly celibacy is the root cause of the sex-abuse problem. He did not. Nor did he call for an end to clerical celibacy. As spokesman for the Vienna archdiocese, responding to these interpretations of the cardinal’s statement, issued a clarification that Cardinal Schönbron “did not call into question celibacy in any way.” His focus was on how young men are prepared to live with that discipline.
In Rome the prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Cardinal Claudio Hummes, confirmed that Church leaders are not planning any change in the rule of priestly celibacy, which he described as “a gift from the Holy Spirit.”
Honduran Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiga, asked whether he saw a connection between celibacy and abuse, replied: ‘I don’t understand how there can be a link.” Archbishop Gerhard Mueller of Regensberg, Germany, was even more dismissive, saying that any claim to see a connection was “nonsense.”
Link to Catholic News Agency:-
The Times has a good piece on this:-
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonCardinal Schönborn says celibacy partly to blame for clerical sex abuse
I’m popping this one on the blog, because it covers one my pet subjects, namely, the Internet and Christianity and also because this report relates to the demise of the Anglican Diocese of British Columbia, which my favourite Anglican blog – Anglican Samizdat – who happens to be Canada based, has blogged about recently; here and here.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonFaced with declining enrolment and revenue that will force it to shutter churches on Vancouver Island, the Anglican Church is turning to the social medium where millions of followers already flock: Twitter.
The Anglican Diocese of British Columbia last weekend voted to close seven churches outright and move those congregations to “hub churches.” The meeting, during which several members tweeted updates to followers, came on the heels of an ominous recent report that predicted that the once powerful church was headed for extinction unless dramatic changes occur.
In addition to recommending that churches close, the report described Canada as a post-Christian society and urged a change in attitude to attract new members, including embracing modern forms of evangelism.
Among other things, the report suggested members and lay people go “outside the walls of our parish buildings,” to talk to people about the church and even invite them to a service. Some clergy have already begun this modern missionary work, using social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to reach new followers.
Rev. Christopher Parsons said the notion of evangelism has traditionally struck a raw nerve among churchgoers, but he argued that the status quo hasn’t worked for years. “Over the years, the church has been able to rest on its laurels,” he said. “You could open the church and its door and people would pour in.” That’s not happening any more.
Canon Parsons, who has his own Twitter account, said finding new faithful through social media isn’t a gimmick. “On the one hand it’s modern. On the other hand it’s incredibly ancient,” Canon Parsons said.
“The idea of doing church differently . . . there are examples of this happening all through the history of the church,” Canon Parson added.
If anything, Canon Parsons drew comparisons to the church and Twitter groups. He attended a recent tweetup, (a social gathering organized by Twitter users), which he described as similar to church.
“The times I’ve gone, they know who I am. They know what I do, so we talk about church. And I say: ‘What is church for you? What is important about this [tweetup]?’ And they say: ‘I find meaning. I find belonging. I find like-minded people.’ I think: ‘This is exactly like church.’ ”
The call for fresh approaches was contained in a 48-page document prepared by The Anglican Synod of the Diocese of British Columbia. Released in January, it repeated earlier predictions that the Anglican church in Canada is losing 13,000 members per year and risks extinction by the 2061.
As a result, the church synod last weekend voted to close seven churches outright, and their congregations will be urged to moved to so-called “hub” churches. There are 54 Anglican churches on Vancouver Island and the adjacent Gulf Islands. More closings could occur in the future.
The changes have sparked concern, sadness and wariness about the future. “Will this work?” asked Christopher Page, the rector of St. Philip’s in Victoria and archdeacon of Juan de Fuca. “It could go either way. This is not a slam dunk.
“It’s not an easy task to be a Christian church in the present cultural climate. There are far too many other attractive options for Sunday morning.”
But Archdeacon Page hopes people will return to religious institutions – and not simply because the Anglican church restructured and consolidated. He said people crave a spiritual life and will tire of the individualism that pervades our culture.
“The hope lies in the reality, I believe, that people do have an abiding hunger in their hearts for something beyond themselves, some kind of transcendent reality. And I think the hope lies in the fact that in our culture, even as we speak, people are becoming dissatisfied and discontented simply with materialism and the focus on getting ahead in the world. And they’re realizing that that is not a fully satisfying life.”
There is a furore over the Israeli governments announcement of plans to build hundreds of homes in east Jerusalem. To make matters worse the timing of the announcement coincided with the official state visit of US vice president Joe Biden, to begin indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.
Israel’s controversial announcement that it had approved construction of 1,600 new apartments coincided with Mr Biden’s arrival in the country for a round of meetings with Israeli officials.
In a strongly-worded statement, Mr Biden criticised the decision to announce the plan during his visit.
“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now,” he said.
“We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them,” he added, warning that “unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations.”
Although ministry officials said the announcement was procedural and unconnected to the visit, a top aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he had been blindsided by the news. Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.
Relations between Israel and the Obama administration have been chilly precisely because of the settlement issue, and one of Mr Biden’s main goals had been to try to repair ties. Mr Biden is the highest-level member of the Obama administration to visit Israel.
Did you notice this comment:-
Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.
If you are wondering why they met during a “late-night dinner” and not earlier in the day, then the answer lies in my post from yesterday:-
It would appear that Benjamin Netanyahu decided to meet with the CUFI earlier in the evening, rather than meet with Biden.
On top of this, the Middle Eastern press has been unimpressed and rather subdued about Biden’s visit:-
Press commentators in Israel and the Palestinian territories have given a subdued response to the visit of US Vice-President Joe Biden to Israel shortly after a new round of indirect negotiations between the two sides was announced.
Israeli papers recognised that the visit was aimed at reaffirming relations with the US, but some acknowledged that the spirit of the trip was undermined by the news that Israel had approved the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.
The Palestinian press, already cool on the prospect of indirect negotiations, were also unenthused by Biden’s visit, with two papers saying he was more interested in Iranian issues than Palestinian ones.
It certainly looks as if the Obama administration is a spent force in the Middle East currently, and these incidents were designed to snub.
Following is Netanyahu’s Address to the Christians United For Israel Jerusalem Summit, and notice the opening comment relating to Jerusalem, which I happen to completely agree with:-
Welcome to Jerusalem, the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.
Your presence here today represents a profound transformation in the relationship between Christians and Jews. This transformation has its roots in the 19th century when the early Christian Zionists came to the Land Israel and when they began exploring the land of the Bible, when they began to yearn for the Jewish restoration in this land, the restoration of our numbers, the restoration of our sovereignty.
In fact, Christian Zionism preceded modern Jewish Zionism, and I think enabled it. But it received a tremendous impetus several decades ago when leading American clergymen, among them most notably, Pastor John Hagee, a dynamic pastor and leader from Texas, began to say to their congregations and to anyone who listened, it’s time to take a stand with Israel. It was time to take a stand with the sole democracy in the Middle East. It was time to take a stand against the lies and the slander and the vilifications. It was time to defend the Jewish state’s right to defend itself.
Today, Christians by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions, by the tens of millions – today they have heard this call, and they stand with Israel. I salute you, the people of Israel salute you, the Jewish people salute you.
Time after time, through thick and thin, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with our state, and I have come here tonight to thank you for your unwavering friendship. And today that friendship is more important than ever because Israel faces unprecedented challenges to its security and its legitimacy.
No security challenge is more important to our common future than preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I have said before and I’ll say again, that the greatest threat facing mankind is the specter of a militant Islamic regime acquiring nuclear weapons, or the specter of nuclear weapons acquiring a militant Islamic regime. The first is dangerously close to happening in Iran, and the second may or may not happen in Pakistan. I believe that with the right policies both can be averted.
If Iran develops atomic weapons, the world would never be the same. We would witness a cascade of terrorism across the globe as terrorists would operate under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. Look at how much havoc, how much terror they sow now, when there is no such umbrella, and understand what can happen if Iran, their patron, sponsor, supplier and supporter, if that Iran had nuclear weapons. Equally, the region’s vital oil supplies could be severely threatened and efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would collapse as one regime after another would rush to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Worst of all, if nuclear weapons would be given to terrorists, or to terrorist states, a 65 year-old era of nuclear peace would be endangered for the first time.
Remember that for the tyrants in Tehran, Israel is only the little Satan. In their eyes, America is the Great Satan. America is their ultimate target. Yet for Israel, the threat from Iran could not be clearer. Iran’s leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction. They brazenly deny the Holocaust and they hope, and they say so just about every other day, they hope to wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East.
We must not allow such a regime to threaten the peace of the world, the peace and security of all humanity. All responsible members of the international community must do everything in their power to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons.
As we speak the United States is leading an international effort to impose sanctions on Iran. We believe those sanctions must have teeth. And to have teeth, they must bite deep into Iran’s energy sector. Simply put, they should prevent Iran from importing gasoline and from exporting oil. I believe that such measures might convince the regime to choose between continuing the weapons program and between assuring the regime’s future. But there must be tough, biting sanctions.
I said that we face great challenges to our security, but we also face unprecedented challenges to our legitimacy. Now this assault on our legitimacy comes in many forms – it comes from the so-called human rights bodies in the UN which would deny Israel its legitimate right of self-defense, it comes by falsely charging Israel’s political and military leaders with imaginary war crimes, and it comes by the outrageous waging campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. You are all familiar with that.
But I think that there is an even greater assault on our legitimacy. I think it is the attempt to perpetrate one of the greatest lies of history — to deny the connection between the people of Israel and the land of Israel; to cast the Jewish people as foreigners in the land of our forefathers. Make no mistake about it. The attempt to deny our history in this land is an attempt to deny our future in this land. That is why to defend our past is to defend our future.
I ask you all to join us in this battle to defend the truth. Remind them of Abraham and Isaac, remind them of Joshua and Samuel, remind them of David and Solomon. Remind the world that the land of the Bible is not in the heavens but right here on earth. And that the people of the Bible, are on the land of the Bible.
Let me tell you how I remind foreign officials of this connection of the Jewish people to our history and to this land. You see, they visit my office. And I say, Would you come and look at this little signet ring that I was given on loan from the Department of Antiquities? It was found next to the Wall of the Second Temple, but it dates back to the First Temple. It goes back some 2800 years ago, to the period of the Kings. It is a signet seal of a Jewish official, and it has a name written in ancient Hebrew, which I can read. The name is: Netanyahu. Netanyahu Ben-Yoash. I say, that’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back 1000 years earlier, to Benjamin the son of Jacob, who also walked these hills. That is our connection. And nobody can deny the connection of the Jewish people to the Jewish land.
Israel faces great challenges. We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must repel the assault on our legitimacy. We must find a way to achieve peace with our neighbors. We must all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.
After centuries in exile, I have come here to assure you, the people of Israel have come home and no force on earth will ever make us leave our home again.
Of course the Obama administration could always attempt to impose a solution on Israel, however, given the above, I doubt that the US has the power or the influence to do so.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonCan you believe this is the second most shared “news” item on the BBC website currently, and the fourth most popular read:-
I liked this comment from Clair Allen:-
“People might think I’m nuts, but I like to think it’s Jesus looking out for us.
Indeed.
No wonder the general populace in general view us as “eccentric”, or as “oddities“.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonShould the Reverend Frank Wainwright have apologised, and was this a “controversial comment” as highlighted in this Telegraph report.
Is it no longer prudent for Ministers to publicly declare that they believe Holy Matrimony is designed for a man and a woman, for fear of offence?
Finally, is it not striking that a short sermon from the “Shires” can become national news, especially if the talk dares drift into the issue of gay marriage?
A Catholic priest has apologised for joking during a sermon that true marriage can only be between Adam and Eve – not ”Adam and Steve”
Reverend Frank Wainwright, 48, a Deacon at St Gregory’s Church in Cheltenham, Glos., made the controversial comment during a Sunday service.
He was preaching on the theme of marriage when he claimed that same-sex civil partnerships are not considered as marriage by the Catholic church.
But his ”flippant joke” sparked five complaints from his congregation and has been branded as homophobic by gay and lesbian rights groups.
Rev Frank Wainwright, who lives in Cheltenham, Glos., apologised for causing any offence and claimed he is not ”homophobic”.
He said: ”The sermon was about marriage and I have no idea why all this has come up but someone has obviously complained.
”The comment is obviously not homophobic and it was just intended as a joke. My duty is to preach what the church preaches that marriage is between a man and a woman.
”I have plenty of gay friends and I have no problem at all with them but as a Catholic minister I must preach that marriage is between a man and woman and nothing else.
”I’m sure there are gay members of my congregation and I imagine it’s one of them who complained but it certainly wasn’t the thrust of my sermon.
”I can see why people are upset by the comment because it was flippant. I totally accept that I have caused offence and I am apologising for that.”
Rev Frank Wainwright delivered the 15-minute sermon on marriage at St Gregory’s Church on January 17 this year.
He told his 200-strong congregation: ”Sometimes in our families we have situations that either surprise us or are not ideal.
”For example if your 15-year-old daughter comes home and says ‘I’m pregnant’ even if it’s a shock and we disagree the first thing we should do to that person is hug them and let them know they are still family.
”Sometimes within the church we have to hold our heads above the parapet and say what we believe as Catholics and sometimes in saying that we will be marginalised and put down.
”For example, in adoption a child has a right to want a mother and father.
”That marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s a life-long commitment and usually only ended by death, as it was in the beginning and ever shall be.
”Marriage is between Adam and Eve – not Adam and Steve.”
One day the “nationals” will pick up a positive story relating to a profound and deeply moving sermon….nah perhaps not.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonI’ve already blogged twice in two days about the large-scale massacre of Christians in Jos, Nigeria, here and here.
As is sadly the case when blogging about the decimation of Christian communities across at the hands of Islamic extremists, it rarely drives much Internet traffic to our blog, simply because there is a high degree of apathy in the Western world, and yes, I am including the Christian community.
As long as it’s not on our doorstep, then it really isn’t that important.
However, I’ll not stop highlighting the plight of our Christian brothers and sisters in Islamic lands on this blog, as long as I draw breath.
Anyway, Melanie Phillips has put up a poignant short post in the Spectator:-
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonThe jihad in Nigeria
Utterly appalling violence by Muslims against Christians in Nigeria where the latest tally after weekend attacks on three mostly Christian villages is some 500 dead. The media have described these events as ‘riots’; I would call this a jihadi pogrom. It is but the latest episode in what the media persist in characterising as inter-ethnic violence, but which is in fact a systematic attempt by Muslims to murder and ethnically cleanse the Christian community. The onslaught is described as ‘retaliation ‘ for violent attacks in Jos last January, in which the majority of the victims were Muslim. But as the Barnabas Fund reports, there is evidence that those January attacks were in fact Christian retaliation against Muslim aggression — in particular on that occasion an attack on a church — which has been going on for years.
The fact that the jihad in Africa is widely ignored in the west is not just a moral dereliction of duty. It is a refusal by the west to understand what it is actually up against. What is happening to Nigeria’s Christians makes a mockery of the frenzied western obsession with Israel. To understand the real cause of global tumult we should look carefully at Africa, and the appalling suffering of those upholding the religion that underpins the western world.
Very interesting research from the Pew Forum surveying people’s use of the Internet as a news source.
But check this comment out:-
Asked what subjects they would like to receive more coverage, 44% said scientific news and discoveries, 41% said religion and spirituality, 39% said health and medicine, 39% said their state government, and 38% said their neighborhood or local community.
41% wanted more coverage of religion and spirituality! Who would have guessed that one?
Admittedly this research has a US bias, but let’s not write off this research as potentially applicable to the UK.
I seem to have a recurring theme over the last couple of days relating to the Internet:-
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
Cross-post from Calvin L Smith (Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School) and nuff said:-
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonWhy Does the BBC Do This?
See this story on the BBC News website concerning horrific violence in Nigeria overnight leading to the death of over a hundred people, mainly women and children, macheted to death. Now read the same story as reported on the CNN website. Notice the major difference in how the story is reported? (Hint: One of the report identifies the religious affiliation of the victims, the other expressly avoids doing so, even to the extent that the report seems incomlete and somehow artificial).
Why does the Beeb do this? Is it driven by fear, either of opposition from or alienating a proportion of its Muslim audience? Or perhaps disdain for Christianity? All of the above? Lest someone feel I’m being overly-sensitive here, it’s important to note the BBC doesn’t have a particularly good track record when it comes to Christianity, while many feel Islam gets rather better treatment. Whether that is the case or not is for others to decide. But I suggest when a Christian village is attacked on a Sunday morning and a hundred people – predominantly women and children – are slashed to death with machetes, yet our national tax-funded broadcaster fails to report the full facts, it has hardly a wise act by a corporation regularly fending off accusations of anti-Christian bias.
The telegraph is covering the news of “militant atheist” Harry Taylor who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and the Koran in the prayer room of an international airport, and has now gone on trial charged with religious harassment.
The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool’s John Lennon airport included “sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons”, a jury heard yesterday.
One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: ” Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”
A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.”
Mr Taylor, 59, a self-styled philosophy tutor, denied bearing a grudge against people of faith and said he was only trying to “convert” believers to atheism.
Liverpool Crown Court heard that he left the materials in John Lennon airport as a tribute to the former Beatle, whose most acclaimed solo work Imagine referenced “a world with no religion”.
He said: “The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport.”
Now before I go any further, I want to make clear that I would probably find the material left by Harry Taylor a mix between humorous and distasteful, however, I do accept that I have a somewhat warped and deviant sense of humour.
This material was found by chaplain Nicky Lees and here is a snippet of her reaction as reported in the Liverpool Daily Post:-
She said: “I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed. I was so concerned that I rang the duty manager and the airport police. I was alarmed other people could come in and see these items and also feel offended and affronted and I was responsible for the prayer room.”
So, this material so alarmed chaplain Nicky Lees, that she felt prompted to involve the airport police.
To be frank with you it is astounding that some Christians can muster the courage to leave their homes. Would you not have simply chucked the crap in the bin? OK, so the police did become involved, but is it not astonishing that they charged Harry Taylor with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act?
Am I missing something perhaps?
MediaWatchWatch, probably have the sanest take on the whole matter.
There is some consolation for hyper-sensitive Christians however, as they are not alone:-
Muslims’ fury at ‘holy city’ boozer
A MUSLIM leader has blasted a pub for using the name of holy city Medina – branding it an insult to his religion.
The boozer in Dundee changed its name from Bar Rio to Medina Bar and Grill after a renovation.
But this has sparked outrage – as Saudi Arabian city Medina is the second-holiest site in Islam behind Mecca.
Medina is also a term used for a market or trading centre in north African cities.
But Mohammed Bashir Chohan, chairman of the Dundee Islamic Society, last night said: “People are upset about it because Medina is a holy city. It does hurt when somebody misuses the name, especially if they are going to sell liquor.”
Perhaps Muslims and Christians can band together to protect themselves from “alarm”, “outrage” and “offence”, oh hold on, they just did:-
Christian Institute – Muslims help lift library ban on Christian poster
Of course the irony is that maybe the library and council staff felt alarmed, offended and affronted at the poster advertising the Women’s World Day of Prayer 
I can feel the BBC glee from here.
Take a look at this article about some bloke who completely lost the plot in a road traffic incident and started waiving around a fishing knife, which ended up cutting the victim on the hands.
Cornish Bible student, uh huh, that’s the headline grabber, then this:-
A bible student who threatened a dustman with a knife during a road rage incident has been jailed for 15 months.
Bible student, OK got that one already.
And we end thusly:-
Luke, who has no previous convictions, was described in court as a “sincere Christian man” and a “kind and compassionate man” by his bible college friends.
Ah, OK this guy is a Christian, makes sense, given the two references to his being a bible student. And we mustn’t forget that he hangs around with other bible students.
Come on, am I over analysing, or are the BBC revelling in the fact that this guy is a “Bible student” and “Sincere Christian man”, who has ballsed up big-time?
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonThe sixth international Israeli Apartheid Week kicked off yesterday, with the “week-long” festivities taking place over 14 days in over 40 cities across the globe.
Organizers say this year’s events are meant to “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”
No country is perfect in this world, but to vilify Israel in this manner is absurd at best, especially when you pause for a moment to consider the rogue, despot, brutal regimes that exist in our world today, most notably; Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and others.
As CAMERA rightly point out on their IsraelApartheidWeek website, even the name of this campaign is subtly designed to malign and delegitimise Israel:-
They come as part of “Israeli Apartheid Week,” a series of lectures, exhibits and events that single out Israel for fierce attack. Students are told the Jewish state is, by nature, a racist, colonial and oppressive state. They are told Israel should be boycotted, and even destroyed. They are told this by ideologues who distort facts about country while ignoring genuine oppression in the Middle East and across the world.
One need look no further than the event’s title to understand its malignant nature. The canard that Israel is an apartheid state is an assault on the country’s very legitimacy. South Africa’s racist, apartheid regime was rightfully dismantled, and this campaign seeks absurdly to cast Israel — the Middle East’s most progressive state and only liberal democracy — as being guilty of similar policies and equally deserving to be dismantled.
Having said all of this, the truly disheartening sight for me personally, is watching “Christian organisations” joining the chorus of Israel-bashers. Jonathan Bartley over at Ekklesia, has this to say about the Israel Apartheid Week:-
Since it was first launched in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the ‘Palestine solidarity calendar’, but in the UK it often passes by without a mention.
Last year though more than 40 cities around the world participated in the week’s activities, which took place in the wake of Israel’s brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. IAW continues to grow with new cities joining this year.
In London, most of the action takes place around universities. I see that my friend Ben White (a regular Guardian CIF contributor) is speaking at the LSE next Tuesday.
I make no secret of my Zionist theology, however, this DOES NOT equate to a “blank cheque” approach to Israel and it must be remembered that anti-Zionist theology has the potential to pose an existential threat to Israel, especially when hijacked by Israel hating radical groups and regimes. See my recent post on this:-
Ekklesia is vocal in its condemnation of Israel and it is most notable that Jonathan Bartley should mention his friend Ben White, who is a regular Guardian CIF contributor.
This is a comment from CIFWatch, which is a blog set up to combat the virulent anti-Semitism relentlessly propounded through the Guardian’s “Comment is Free”:-
When it comes to coverage of Israel on ‘Comment is Free’, readers are regularly exposed to a noxious mix of antizionism, antisemitism and other garden variety Israel-bashing.
On the pages of ‘Comment is Free’, contributors regularly label Israel as a racist and apartheid state and use emotive epithets such as “coloniser”, “ethnic cleansing”, “war crimes”, “separation wall”, “bantustans” and “war-mongering” to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. Intentional acts of violence against the civilian population in Israel are either downplayed or totally ignored while attempts by Israel to prevent such attacks portray Israel as the unprovoked bloodthirsty aggressor that is motivated by an innate and racist hatred of the non-Jewish Arabs.
Recurring themes include spuriously characterizing Zionism as the antithesis of core Jewish values, touting of the one-state solution, comparing the acts of the Israelis with those of the Nazis, dehumanizing the Israeli settler population, morally equivocating between the Israeli right-wing and the Islamists, trumpeting the “Israel lobby” lie, accusing Jews of dual loyalties and sneering at those that dare defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.
It is no coincidence that Jonathan Bartley’s friend, Ben White, is a much loved contributor to the Guardian CIF, as he himself is most certainly not friendly to Israel.
Seismic Shock has blogged on Ben White and has this to say:-
…..I’ve also blogged about Ben White, a British journalist who rose to fame recently whilst defaming Israel and praising Christian anti-Zionist theologians such as Stephen Sizer and Colin Chapman. In recent months, White has gained notoriety for recommending the work of a Holocaust denier in a polemical book against Israel, banning Zionist Jews from his meetings and facebook groups, and for being alarmed at the arrest of antisemites who plotted to blow up a synagogue in New York.
It was the Seismic Shock blog that first picked up on Ben White’s infamous quote “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”.
The Modernity Blog has an interesting article reflecting on Ben White’s journalism in the Guardian.
Following is an excellent article from Seismic Shock, posted on CIFWatch, reviewing Ben White, the Guardian and also mentioning Ekklesia:-
All About Zion
White blogs about Neve Gordon, highlighting a sentence in The Nation about reaction to Gordon’s article:
But is Ben White also the ‘butt of vicious attacks’? He has complained about his critics in the past. Writing on Liberal Conspiracy, White protests:
‘A favourite tactic of die-hard defenders of Israel is to smear critics of the country’s policies through guilt by association, lies, and decontextualised quotations.
I have come to know this latter strategy quite well.’
For Ben White, it’s All About Zion. White sees himself as ‘a critic of the country’s policies’, and his critics in turn are ‘die-hard defenders of Israel’, seemingly obsessed with Zionism.
Yet Ben White is not your average critic of Israel, nor even your average boycotter of Israel. White has even stated ‘I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.’ There is a strong religious dimension to Ben White’s anti-Zionism. White gives talks in churches and theological colleges, and his writing is praised by vicars, archbishops and other prominent clergymen. His book on Israel has received positive reviews on the Ekklesia website, an evangelical blog, and his letter in the Independent on Israel’s 60th birthday has raised his profile significantly amongst Christians.
He has previously written on CIF in praise of Christian “anti-Zionists” Colin Chapman and Stephen Sizer, who have developed a theology which suggests that the modern state of Israel is an offence to God, as Jews are no longer God’s Chosen People. For example, Sizer thinks that Israel is a rejected vineyard tossed into the flames by God.
Can you imagine The Guardian’s liberal-left Comment Is Free publishing praise of Christians who argue that the Curse of Ham extends to all dark-skinned people, and so black people cannot run their own countries? Or publishing praise of Christians who argue that Ishmael’s descendants are cursed, and therefore don’t have a right to run their own countries? Why did CommentIsFree publish a piece in praise of replacement theology-spouting anti-Zionists?
This is not the only disturbing aspect of Ben White’s writings and blog posts. Take his article from 11 January 2006 from The Palestine Chronicle (written four days before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement of plans for a Holocaust review conference), in which he argued that Mahmoud Ahmadinjead was not really a Holocaust denier. Framing his comments in a religious context, White rationalised Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial thus:
‘The news agency goes on though to report that the President described how “some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets because when a person expresses disbelief in God, religion and prophets they do not object to him but they will protest to anyone who would reject the Holocaust”. Again, Ahmadinejad is drawing attention to the extent to which European nations prosecute Holocaust deniers, yet are by and large post-Christian societies with little regard for religion. For a devout believer like the Iranian President, this must seem like a strange situation.’
White also produced this astounding sentence:
‘The Holocaust comes to symbolize the intrinsic anti-Jewish racism of ‘Gentile’ societies, and therefore proving the need for a Jewish state. More disturbingly perhaps, the Holocaust acts as a standard for human depravity set so high, that any treatment of the Palestinians is justifiable, as long as it falls short of what was experienced by the Jews in Nazi Europe.’
But why does White suggest the Holocaust ‘acts as’ or ‘comes to symbolise’ anything? Why does White see Israel’s Holocaust memorial as merely a tool of Zionism, without appreciating that millions of Israelis are simply the descendents of Holocaust survivors, and don’t want the atrocities of Nazi Europe to be forgotten? Or is the Holocaust now All About Zion?
Most offensive is the idea that Israelis gladly mete out cruelty and punishment to Palestinians, and so long as Israel doesn’t actually create gas chambers, Israel will feel it can do what it likes. Does White genuinely believe this? Is White reluctant to show sympathy with the victims of antisemitic violence?
Consider also White’s reaction to the arrest of antisemites in May of this year. White saw the arrest as a ‘fully controlled threat to our freedoms,’ as an FBI agent had infiltrated a group of four men plotting to explode a synagogue in New York. All four plotters now have prison sentences.
So how was this a ‘fully controlled threat to our freedoms’? For Ben White, what are ‘our freedoms’ in this case?
Was this about our freedom to worship in synagogues without fear of terrorist attack, or about our freedom to plot attacks on synagogues so long as we aren’t successful in carrying them out, or don’t actually have explosives?
Did the threat come from the extremists willing to launch terror against innocent Jews, or did the threat come from law enforcement agents seeking to prevent anti-Jewish terrorism?
Once again, amazingly, White appeared to sympathise with those responsible for antisemitism rather than the victims of antisemitism. To add insult to injury, White’s book (intended for ‘beginners’ to Israel/Palestine) contains a recommendation of the writings of French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy.
Now ask yourself whether Ben White’s critics always have Zionism in mind, and whether it always is All About Zion? Perhaps it’s about doing unto others as you would have done to you.
CBN - Erick Stakelbeck (Hat-tip Solomonia)
Have you ever heard of a supposedly “pro Israel” group that has issued more press releases condemning Christian Zionists than it has Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Hezbollah and Syria combined? No? Then welcome to J Street, the self-described “pro Israel, pro peace” lobbying group that bends over backwards to insult Israel’s friends and supporters, especially evangelical Christians, and makes a living off of criticizing Israeli government policies.
I’ve discussed J Street’s naked anti-Christian bigotry before (see here and here) but since they are at it again (more on that in a bit), I felt compelled to undertake a little research project. I went to J Street’s website and surveyed the group’s press releases from the past year and a half. The results? To start, four press releases (including one from February 1, 2010) attacking John Hagee and Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Indeed, two of J Street’s first four press releases were devoted to slamming Hagee. Talk about misguided priorities: a purportedly pro-Israel group using all of this ink on Hagee and evangelical supporters of Israel at a time when Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are stockpiling increasingly lethal weapons and publicly calling for Israel’s destruction.
In those press releases, J Street essentially painted Hagee–a man Senator (and orthodox Jew) Joseph Lieberman once compared to Moses–as a closet anti-Semite and portrayed Christian supporters of Israel as some sort of wild-eyed, apocalyptic death cult (a strategy which this release by J Street’s founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami, took to new extremes). But what may be even more offensive is that J Street has come up with exactly one–one–press release condeming genocidal Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. And zero press releases condeming either Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, two others who regularly threaten Israel’s demise. If J Street wants ”end times” and “apocalyptic,” then Ahmadenijad, Assad and Nasrallah–who all met yesterday in Damascus to plot further attacks against Israel–are certainly the real deal. So why the bizarre preoccupation with evangelical Christians, an extremely large and influential group that Israeli government officials of every political persuasion routinely hail as among the Jewish people’s greatest friends and supporters?
I was greeted by the same puzzling output when scanning through opinion pieces penned by “members of J Street’s Advisory Council and by its staff and friends.” No less than three scathing op-eds that mention Hagee or CUFI in the title, and others, like this one, that slam them in the body of the piece. Yet not one op-ed that mentions Ahmadenijad, Nasrallah or Assad in the title, or Hamas for that matter. Christian supporters of Israel and Israeli government officials, on the other hand, are specifically targeted for criticism. Again, this is a quite peculiar strategy for a “pro-Israel” group to pursue.
Which brings us to the latest example. J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami once again mischaracterized CUFI recently, erroneously claiming that the group contributed money to a certain Israeli organization. I won’t go into all the details here–rather, I strongly encourage you to read two comprehensive responses to J Street written by a pair of CUFI spokesmen (see here and here).
Bottom line: J Street’s press releases, writings and public statements reflect a great deal of time and energy spent cutting down Israel’s friends and supporters–with a special venom reserved for evangelical Christians–not to mention, the Netanyahu government. On the other hand, the group has spent precious little time condeming Israel’s sworn enemies. You can call this perplexing tactic many things. Pro-Israel is not one of them.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonThis beggars belief, Cross-post MediaWatchWatch:-
Brazil Catholics sue Hollywood for crumbling Redeemer image
The Catholic Church of Brazil seems to be under the impression that it owns any image of the famous Christ the Redeemer sculpture which stands high above Rio de Janeiro, and is suing Columbia Pictures for using it in last year’s blockbuster 2012.
The apocalyptic film shows Rio being destroyed by a tidal wave, and the 40-metre statue crumbling under the water.
The Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro, who commissioned the sculpture in 1931, refused permission to Columbia when they asked to use the image in their film, but Columbia went ahead anyway. The Archdiocese’s laweyer, Claudine Dutra, explained:
many faithful have said they are shocked and offended by the images of the destruction of this sanctuary that the archdiocese wanted to preserve.
We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense.
They are also seeking undisclosed damages.
Funnily enough, director Roland Emmerich wanted to include a scene which showed the destruction of the Kaaba – the holy rock-in-a-box towards which devout Muslims point the crown of their head five times a day. But he feared a fatwa.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonOh finally someone important (Lord Carlile) has come out and said what we’ve been saying for ages about the BBC’s love of the “death cult”. Here are a couple of recent posts.
The BBC on: Assisted Dying, Terry Pratchett, Panorama, Dementia, Dimbleby Lectures and Euthanasia
And now this from the Telegraph:-
BBC accused of ‘incredibly zealous’ campaign to promote assisted suicide – The BBC faces accusations of waging an “incredibly zealous” campaign in favour of assisted suicide from a coalition led by Lord Carlile, the Government’s terror watchdog.
The Care Not Killing Alliance accused the BBC of flouting impartiality rules and adopting a “campaigning stance” in an attempt to step up pressure on the Government to legalise assisted suicide.
The decision to broadcast Sir Terry Pratchett’s speech advocating “euthanasia tribunals” in full earlier this month was an example of unbalanced reporting, the alliance claimed.
Lord Carlile, chairman of the alliance and the Government’s independent reviewer of terror legislation, has demanded a meeting with BBC bosses to seek answers over the “biased” coverage.
In a letter to Sir Michael Lyons, the chairman of the BBC trust, the Liberal Democrat peer also raised questions over the corporation’s failure to inform police that a veteran presenter had confessed to killing his lover on one of its programmes.
Ray Gosling admitted smothering a man who was dying of AIDS on Inside Out, which was broadcast on BBC East Midlands last Monday.
Police were unaware of the confession before the programme was aired, but have since arrested and questioned Mr Gosling on suspicion of murder. He was bailed on Friday.
The BBC maintains that it was under “no legal obligation” to inform police of Mr Gosling’s confession. A spokesman for the Trust said Sir Michael had not yet received Lord Carlile’s letter and would respond when it arrived.
This is an excellent article by Elizabeth Drescher over at Religion Dispatches. Previous related post:-
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonThe Pope and Social Media: A Digital Counter-Reformation?
A couple of weeks ago, in anticipation of the 44th World Communications Day (May 16, 2010), Pope Benedict XVI issued a message in which he ardently encouraged priests, very particularly, to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audio-visual resources (images, videos, animated features, blogs, Web sites) which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization, and catechesis.
Many commentators saw Benedict’s statement as a bold move by the Roman Catholic Church into a new era of open, interactive communication with the faithful. But the Pope’s message, starting with the title, “The Priest and Pastoral Ministry in a Digital World: New Media at the Service of the Word,” made clear that the Vatican did not intend to engage in the sort of wide interactivity, distribution of authority, and mashing of diverse perspectives that is characteristic of the Web 2.0 world. The message makes clear that the task of proclaiming the Word of God belongs primarily to priests, and that they must be trained to be actively present on in the internet “from the time of their formation… shaped by sound theological insights and reflecting a strong priestly spirituality grounded in constant dialogue with the Lord.”
That is, we may presume, navigating new social media should now be entering the seminary curriculum. On this point, at least, il Papa and I are in complete agreement: those called to ministry must develop fluency in what are fast becoming the dominant modes of interpersonal expression and communication as well as central mechanisms in the construction of personal identity, social identity, and community.
One Step Forward, Three or Four Centuries Back
Yet, Web 2.0 and all that his effort attempts to be, I can’t help noticing how much the Pope’s World Communication Day message echoes themes of the 16th and 17th century Counter Reformation.
Largely a response to the provocations of the Continental and English Reformations, the initiating event of the Counter Reformation was the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which affirmed the medieval teachings on the authority of Roman Catholic traditions. As was the case in many previous and subsequent reforms, the Council sought to improve the education of the clergy and laity, striving to bring them into closer relationship without upsetting the balance of spiritual authority that weighed decisively in favor of the priest.
In a now classic essay on the period, the historian John Bossy argued that the Counter Reformation was fundamentally about shoring up the institutional power of the Church by reeducating both priests and laity on the fidelity the faithful owed the Church (via the parish priest) over loyalty to kinship networks, community bonds, or feudal relationships. According to Bossy, the reforms of Trent were bent on dissuading believers from attending to the theological novelties of Protestantism and humanist secularism that were swirling throughout Christendom, aided greatly by new, printed social media.
As Pope Benedict’s message tacitly acknowledges, today’s communication technologies invite engagement with religious pluralism and spiritual syncretism to a degree which neither Pope Paul III nor Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avilla, John of the Cross, or Francis de Sales (the all-stars of early modern Catholic reform) could not possibly have imagined. So, while it certainly seems a wise move to urge clergy to enter digital communities and conversations as keepers of the Catholic faith, their very use of social media undermines the clerical control that the Pope’s message is intent on securing.
Users, Not Consumers
New social media is defined primarily in contrast to not to print, but to broadcast media: radio, movies, television. Where the latter is characterized by passive reception of a message crafted outside the immediate experience of the audience, social media today is by its nature participatory, interactive, collaborative, distributive, and, importantly, integrated deeply into the day-to-day experience of users. Updating a Facebook status or tweeting a question about the nature of the Trinity (it happens!) is not a break in the action, an interruption of demands of daily life. These activities are intimate parts of contemporary daily life for the more than 350 million Facebook users and more than 80 million Twitter users.
The key here is that these millions of people are users, not consumers. They are active and engaged, and have a level of authority over the messages they encounter the likes of which we have probably never seen before. What’s more, their engagement in social media has the effect of changing the forms and functions of these media themselves. All of this is to say that the masses with whom the Pope rightly believes Roman Catholic priests ought to engage on “the digital continent” have considerably more authority in relation to institutionalized spiritual authority delegated to priests over the construction of Christian spiritualities than believers and seekers may have had at any time in the past. In ways that have surely always been true, but which are much more pronounced in competent engagement with the Web 2.0 environment, Christian evangelization and catechesis ultimately result in the conversion of both the missionary and his [sic] subject.
To wit, though the Pope’s message highlighted the centrality of priests in leveraging new social media in the service of the Church, “P2Y,” a Vatican Web site directed to young people inverts the traditional hierarchy, inviting users to post the Pope’s message on their Facebook pages and to send it directly to their priests via Facebook, email, or, for the hopelessly disconnected priest, snail mail.
“Who better than a priest, as a man of God, can develop and put into practice, by his competence in current digital technology, a pastoral outreach capable of making God concretely present in today’s world and presenting the religious wisdom of the past as a treasure which can inspire our efforts to live in the present with dignity while building a better future?” the Pope’s message asked.
The answer, apparently, is a 15-year-old with a Facebook account and a Wi-Fi connection.
Taking No Prisoners
The Vatican’s brave foray into the social media landscape offers but one illustration of how new social media reshapes religious institutions and practices, pressing intently on traditional roles, centers of authority, understandings of spiritual identity, and the construction of spiritual community in what has been called the “Digital Reformation.” Clearly, this is not an exercise in simple inculturation or contextual translation (if there ever really were such things). Effectively participating in the new social media environment is not a matter of picking up a new vocabulary of glyphs, images, and sounds that will “capture” the attention of those with whom we want to connect. Digital media has no captives. At least so far, no one’s really figured out how to effectively and durably colonize it. And, I’m pretty sure that’s all to the good.
A meaningful interactive pilgrimage through the Web 2.0 world requires traditional Christian leaders to take very different approaches to mission and ministry; ones that demand a particularly respectful attentiveness to what the Roman church would call the “sensus fidelium” (the sense of the faithful) that is not always the strong suit of Christian leaders across the denominational spectrum. Active users of social media have claimed their Facebook profiles, Twitter feeds, and YouTube channels as places where status updates, tweets, video uploads, and cellphone text messages rely only on the authority of those expressing and representing their own experience—and that authority is almost instantaneously shared with those who read, listen, watch, and may re-present their own self-authorized interpretation of what they have gathered.
Inviting young Roman Catholics to pass along messages to their priests from the magisterium, as the Pontifical Council for Social Communications has done through the “P2Y” site, is nothing like asking them to courier, intact, a missive waxed shut with the Papal seal. It is more even than a digitized game of telephone. It is, rather, to enter the message into to the social and intellectual currency of world defined by distributed authority, collaborative interpretation, and communally-regulated improvisation that simultaneously affirms, resists, challenges, and repurposes available resources.
Truly engaging the digital world from this perspective promises, as has been the case in every reformation, to turn the institutional Church around in ways, we can only hope, that revive the radically countercultural and spiritually transformative heart of Christianity.
Elizabeth Drescher, PhD, is assistant professor of Christian spiritualities and Director of the Center for Anglican Learning & Life (CALL) at Church Divinity School of the Pacific, an Episcopal seminary in Berkeley, CA. Her book Tweet if U ? Jesus: Leadership, Communications, and Community for the Digital Reformation will be released in Fall 2010. Her Web site is elizabethdrescher.net.
Check out Judah’s new site.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
Isn’t the most remarkable facet of the below article from the Telegraph, the fact that this makes national news?
In a leaflet issued to parishoners, the Rev Angus MacLeay used passages in the Bible to justify women playing a submissive role in local church life. He urged women to “submit to their husbands in everything”.
Mr MacLeay, a member of the General Synod, is opposed to the appointment of women bishops. He has campaigned vociferously for Reform, an Evangelical group that seeks to reform the Church of England “according to the Holy Scriptures”.
The leaflet he issued It says at one point: “Wives are to submit to their husbands in everything in recognition of the fact that husbands are head of the family as Christ is head of the church.
“This is the way God has ordered their relationships with each other and Christian marriage cannot function well without it.”
In a section called `More difficult passages to consider’, it continues:
“It would seem that women should remain silent….if their questions could legitimately be answered by their husbands at home.”
This is also reported in the Mail, Guardian, Mirror and elsewhere.
In this day and age of loudly trumpeted increasing secularism, I find it remarkable that there is still a slight media obsession with the views sounded from the pulpit, especially if those views are perceived to be archaic or out of sync with the prevailing spirit of the age, of course.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonHey, I haven’t been approached to be part of the “Catholic Voices” team….yeah right, in my dreams.
On a serious note, let’s face it, this job won’t be easy, especially when you have the likes of Harry’s Place joining the fray.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles SpurgeonA team of “authoritative but unofficial” media-savvy pundits is being put together by the Church in advance of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Britain in September.
Between 20 and 25 people will be recruited into the “Catholic Voices” team by the end of this month.
From March until July they will attend fortnightly briefing sessions on potentially contentious issues that may arise during the Pope’s visit. They will also receive intensive media skills training in a three-day course. A residential retreat in the summer at Worth Abbey, Crawley, will conclude their training.
Jack Valero, director of communications of Opus Dei in Britain, said a pool of people will be available before, during and after the Pope’s trip to speak to the media and to “communicate the message attractively, positively and persuasively”.
The team has not yet been officially announced. Abbot Christopher Jamison of Worth and Lord Brennan, president of the Catholic Union of Great Britain, are the project’s patrons.
Abbot Jamison said: “Catholic Voices came out of discussions that followed the disastrous outcome of a major public debate about the Church last October.”
In an Intelligence Squared debate last year between Ann Widdecombe MP and Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria, and Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens, the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world” was defeated by 1,876 to 268.
“Some Catholics were afterwards calling for a professional group of apologists – a modern-day version of the old Catholic Evidence Guild but geared to the demands of the modern media. Pope Benedict’s address to our bishops in Rome shows how important and necessary this project is,” he said.
When the Pope met the English and Welsh bishops in Rome last week he said the Church needed “great writers and communicators”, citing Cardinal Newman as an example.
Pope Benedict called on the bishops to “insist upon your right to participate in national debate through respectful dialogue with other elements in society” and “to draw on the considerable gifts of the lay faithful in England and Wales and see that they are equipped to hand on the faith to new generations comprehensively, accurately and with a keen awareness that in so doing they are playing their part in the Church’s mission”.
Catholic Voices is independent of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales but has its approval.
It follows on from a similar project launched in 2006 to deal with the media interest in the film of Dan Brown’s novel The Da Vinci Code.
Lord Brennan said: “The idea is to have a good mixture of people on our team. Some might have a particular knowledge or expertise, but we are looking mostly for fresh faces, people who are willing to be trained in how to put across their views in the quick-fire settings of media interviews and debates.
“The team will be available before and during Pope Benedict’s visit and we hope will continue in some form afterwards,” he said.
The members of the team will be selected by the end of February, and the 10 evening briefing sessions will begin in March.
The areas include the role and teaching of the Church, the Church in personal and public life, the Church and current political and economic questions, the Church’s teaching on population and development, clerical sexual abuse, the Church and science, the Church and non-Catholic religious bodies, the Vatican and the papacy and holiness and sainthood.
As I have said so many times before, you will have to forgive my deviant sense of humour in advance, because I found this very funny indeed:-
The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith, apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith.
The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers.
The lines read out by the DJ included: “One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother.”
The presenter on Genesis TV, a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films.
It began: “My inspiration in life is a man I met in Nigeria called Ben Kenobi. He taught be so much about the Force that spirituality has; it can be used for good and it can be used for bad.”
After stumbling over references to Midi-chlorians, microscopic life forms found in the Star Wars universe, the presenter takes objection to Mr Kenobi’s advice that we must try to live in harmony with the dark forces of the universe.
“I don’t think that is biblical,” he says. “It doesn’t sound right.”
A clip showing the presenter reading the two emails has been viewed more than 440,000 time since being uploaded onto YouTube last month.
The prankster has posted dozens of other videos of prank calls and emails he has made to Christian television stations.
If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
