A nine year old's dilemma whilst discerning her vocation...

"Mummy, the problem with being a religious sister is... WHO catches the spiders?"

 

Indeed! I'm proud that my example has given her such a profound insight into the true meaning of Christian marriage: who catches the spiders when there's no husband around?

 

Astonishing spontaneous pro-family demonstrations to protest French Government's intention to force through redefinition of marriage, family. Meanwhile traditional Catholics are publicly tarred with the 'Nazi' brush by a government minister and a TV documentary

Following the French government's sly fast-tracking the so-called "marriage pour tous" bill through the Assembly and Senate and moving the date of the final reading forward by a month to April 23, thereby halving the debating time, French pro-family demonstrators have taken to the streets in a succession of spontaneous protests.

 

Various French pro-family blogs report a heavy-handed attitude by the police, with peaceful demonstrators even being hauled off to police cells for several hours on spurious grounds, before being released. One demonstrator was told by the gendarmerie that he was not allowed to walk home carrying an unfurled Tricolour. Demonstrations in France are usually tightly regulated, requiring advance notice to be given to the local police, however escalating fury at the government's steamrolling the "loi Taubira" legislation (nicknamed after the Minister of Justice who proposed it) has prompted dozens of large-scale protests in Paris and throughout the country. Roads have been blocked by "go slow" corteges of cars, and tens of thousands of demonstrators have made their displeasure felt in a peaceful and non-violent way. None of the protests that has taken place since Friday have been OKed with the police, nor do they have any one source (although the "Manif Pour Tous" network of organisations are a common thread, as evidenced by the well produced banners and placards: as one might expect, when the French "do " protest they do it with style). Twitter, Facebook and other new media have rallied crowds who - unlike their counterparts in the London riots of 2011, despite being mobilised by new technology and motivated by discontent - have caused no criminal damage and committed no acts of violence. They have, however, been clear in their demands: don't change the definition of marriage - for the sake of the family and the sake of children.

Despite the numbers involved, the media here in the UK appears almost oblivious to the protests: both the BBC and the Telegraph felt that some new detail in the tired breast implant story was worth leading with, while I had to dig for anything on the Manif Pour Tous and even when I did find the story the slant favoured the gay lobby point of view with only a nod to the pro-family protests emphasising that they were "right wing" provoked "scuffles with police" and quoted one leftist politician hinting darkly about "nazi salutes". The BBC didn't carry it at all and a search for showed that the last (and only) report on the Manif Pour Tous was in Januay and it grumbled uncomfortably about the fact that while there seemed to be lot of people protesting the redefinition of marriage legistion, obviously the young people they talked to were all in favour of it. The sot of fair reporting we've come to expect from our national treasure. If I had more time I would fisk the article, it's begging for it.

 

So that's it then: being against the redefinition of marriage makes you a thug and a crypto-nazi to boot. I'm not being entirely frivolous here: for the last year or so there has been a sinister undercurrent in French politics attempting to blacken the reputation (and thereby the credibility) of traditionalist Catholic groups in France. Consider the government's list of groups to be monitored for allegedly displaying a "religious pathology": this list specifically targeted Traditional Catholics (who, thanks largely to a relationship with the French state characterised by overt mutual distrust, are much better organised than their Britsh counterparts who tend to pretend to like and get on with the government even when it is clear that the government is unjust and immoral). Whether or not this set a precendent for a US Army TrainingBrief last week categorising Catholics as "extremists" ("defined by beliefs, attitudes or feelings far removed from the 'ordinary") is a moot point but certainly represents a trend that deserves to be scrutinised. In France, however, the most recent outrage is a TV "expose"of a Traditionalist Catholic group where two journalists had infiltated the group over the course of a year to expose the "truth" about the Traditionalist movement in France. The programme was aired on state owned France2 television station and Daniel Hamiche, who is behind the Riposte-Catholique (think a French version of Rorate crossed with the LMS Chairman's blog) was called into the studio to discuss what he thought was to be a documentary on Traditional Catholicism in France. He describes what happened as follows:

It was not [as he had been led to believe] an update on the traditionalist movement in France, but a charge - which was not that of the Light Cavalry, believe me - against Catholic traditionalism.

...

As indicated in the programme's title, journalists were "infiltrators" in a group calling themselves [Catholic] "traditionalist" in Bordeaux for more than a year in an attempt to find evidence against the group in particular, but also against [Catholic] Traditionalism generally. This group, Dies Irae - its members call it "DI" - which I did not know even existed, is actually a small formation of the radical right. By infiltrating the group and using hidden cameras, the reporters gave viewers a really disreputable image of this organisation.

...

The essence of the report is: "traditionalists = Nazis", schools indpendent of state control = incubators o fascism; priests in cassocks = chaplains LVF [the division of the Nazi army made up of French volunteers n WW2]. It was "reductio ad hitlerum" ...

 

What's happening in France is in many ways a mirror to what is happening here in the UK - our government is on the cusp of pushing through unwanted legislation that will redefine marriage and by extension change the legal framework of the family forever. Do we have the determination and organisation demonstrated by French Catholics? I don't think that we currently do and I think that our relationship with the state goes some way to explain that. More to the point, can we generate the kind of passion and commitment that the French have shown if required in the near future? And even if we can, will our government listen? Unlikely. Last week Larousse - France's O.E.D. - thrust two obscene fingers up at democracy and changed the definiton of marriage from a union of "a man and a woman" to a union of "two persons"for the 2014 edition of the book that defines the French language. Like David Cameron's bogus "consultation" on the redefinition of marriage, the powers that be in France are confident of the outcome. But are they as confident of the public's reaction to that outcome? Judging from recent comments by Manuel Valls, the interior minister, that "extemist groups" protesting the loi Taubra are seeking to "destabilise the Republic" I reckon that the French government is deeply uneasy by the alliance of peaceful, ordinary people who have come out to protest in a measured and ordered way, particularly as one of their main demands is for a referendum on the matter. I'm interested to see how this develops as it will inevitably have repecussions for the UK.

Redefining marriage is a risky and reckless social experiment, and seems an odd novelty on which to focus given the dire state of our economy and the unease British society in general. As the placards waved in Paris, Lyon, Marseille, Perpignan and throughout France say: "Leave marriage alone and concentrate on unemployment!"

 

I don't want a gay marriage. So why am I being forced to have one?

Whaddya mean "unnatural"? You bigot!

 One of the more sophomoric slogans of pro-gay marriage campaigners is "if you don't want a gay marriage, then don't get one!" You can almost hear the hyuck-hyuck-hyuck snigger after the exclamation mark.

There may be a serious point contained within this slogan: if Call-me-Dave Cameron actually pushes through his promised amendments to marriage legislation, the British government will have to redefine the nature and purpose of marriage. It is this point that seems to me to be least understood by the man on the #37 Clapham omnibus whose point of view tends to be "well, if gay people want to get married, I don't see why they shouldn't...". The mainstream media has largely ignored the issue of the redefinition of marriage, focusing on perceived "injustices" in the status quo. As many commentators have described far better than I can (see Marie Therese here and here (h/t Mulier Fortis)) from a rights and purely legal point of view there is currently no discrimination against gay couples in British law: civil partnerships confer the same legal rights as marriage, but recognise that marriage is different and distinct based as it still is on a stable sexual relationship geared towards the procreation and rearing of children; and this even in secular law where non-consummation is still considered reason for divorce.

I would argue that gay couples, if anything, have more rights at present than other individuals in British society. Two sisters or two friends who have lived together but are not in a relationship cannot use legislation to confer legal rights / inheritance / succession onto their friend / sibling. Really, to be fair, civil partnerships should acknowledge that human relationships come in all shapes and sizes. I had an elderly, blind piano teacher when I was in my teens. She had had the same carer / companion for over 50 years but they were not in a  sexual relationship: a civil partnership would have acknowledged their interrelationship in a far simpler way than the only other option which was a complicated combination of living wills and ordinary wills.

And then there's the rather delicate question of the nature of marriage and consummation. I've read several imaginative and rather jokey accounts, as well as a few tasteless ones, of what might constitute consummation in a gay marriage. The fact is, that the adoption of gay "marriage" will make consummation a nul point. Marriage will no longer be linked to procreation, it will be about two people who are in love. Awwwww. Sweet that, but will  it last a lifetime? And what exactly is the point? Could it be about the Big Day? I reckon that it's driven in part by the wedding industry: I'll bet that someone has the commissioning documents for "My Big Fat Gay Wedding" already waiting for the change in legislation. I'd also put money on the fact that at least one large publisher will have a glossy gay "Wedding" magazine ready to hit the shelves within days of the announcement of the change to the law.

Back to my original point (the soup's bubbling on the stove and I'm typing against the clock): why should I be forced to have a gay marriage? Because that's exactly what's going to happen if this bandwagon rolls on uncontested. I don't want a marriage denuded of its meaning. Why should the definition of my marriage change just because a small a vocal minority are demanding that ALL marriages change to accommodate them? Why is new ideology being retrofitted to old law? Just as it's outrageously unfair to change the terms of someone's employment contract without notifying them (pity the poor registrar who, after 20 years in the job, is told to like it or lump it when civil partnerships came in) it's equally unfair to change the legal nature of every marriage in the country without asking permission of those who are married. Since when was the following small print at the bottom of the marriage certificate:

 "Terms and conditions apply. Government may choose to redefine marriage on an electoral whim. Past performance is no guarantee of future integrity" ?

A prince among bishops

Despite a busy schedule, Bishop Mark Davies generously drove from Shrewsbury to North Norfolk to join the National Association of Catholic Families' Walsingham Pilgrimage for the second year in a row. After celebrating Mass, he met with an audience of NACF parents and answered questions on topics ranging from the new evangelisation to Catholic education to the ways to avoid teenage lapsation. +Davies was, as ever, wise, humble and courageous - exactly what one would hope a Bishop to be. A holy Bishop. He received a standing ovation before leaving to bless the various children's groups and return to his diocese and busy schedule.

The homily that Bishop Davies gave is worth reproducing in full - and I have done so below with a link to the Diocese of Shrewsbury website. As every word is carefully chosen and not a syllable is wasted, it would be impossible to represent the importance of this homily with selective quotations. Please read it and then pray for this courageous shepherd.

Reprinted from the Diocese of Shrewsbury website:

‘The Future of Humanity Passes by Way of the Family’ 

Homily for the National Association of Catholic Families 

National Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham 

“The future of humanity passes by way of the family” 

 We gather during this celebration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee. We rejoice with many today not only in the Queen’s constitutional role carried out with unfailing dedication but also in her Christian witness of faith and prayer. However, it is significant that a family stands always at the centre of our constitution, at the heart of our national life. The Crown passes by way of a family! It was, of course, in this Norfolk countryside almost a millennium ago that a simple house was built to remind all generations of the centrality and holiness of the family revealed by God’s plan in the Holy Family of Nazareth. True, it was a monarch, King Henry VIII, not noted for his reverence for marriage, who saw both house and shrine destroyed four centuries ago. Yet Walsingham has now visibly returned in its Catholic and Anglican witness. Here we will always be reminded in Blessed John Paul II’s unforgettable words that, “the future of humanity passes by way of the family” (Familaris Consortio n. 86). It is a self-evident truth which too often is obscured in our consciousness today that the future of humanity, the future of society, depends on the family.

The Deputy Prime Minister was recently reported as saying he could not understand why Christians and other people of faith saw a legal redefinition of marriage as a matter of conscience: it would not he claimed impinge on religious freedoms. Experience, of course, might make us cautious of such assurances, even those given by a Deputy Prime Minister, that this agenda will not threaten religious freedom. However, our concern is not only with religious freedom but also with the enormous good which marriage represents as foundational to family-life. Today we see a government, without mandate, disposing of any credible consultation, seeking to impose one of the greatest acts of “social engineering” in our history by uprooting the legal definition of marriage. Marriage lies at the very foundation of the family. For all generations to follow one generation of politicians is setting out to demolish in the name of an “equality agenda” the understanding of marriage that has served as the timeless foundation for the family. The government is seeking to do this at the very moment when marriage as an institution has been more weakened than ever before. Yet it asks: why are people of faith concerned?

One of England’s greatest and clearest thinkers the now Blessed John Henry Newman famously distinguished what he called “notional assent” from “real assent.” It seems that most people in public life give a notional assent to the value of the family as that first and vital cell of society – and never more so than in those moments of social disturbance such as the riots of last summer. However, what is needed is not just a notional agreement to the importance of family but a real assent to the place of the family in our society as securing the well-being of generations to come. This involves the recognition of what marriage uniquely is. A recognition comes not only from faith but from reason which clearly sees that it is from the family that “citizens come to birth and it is with within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues which are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself” (Familaris Consortio n 42). In this way it is in the family that the future of society will be decided. So far from weakening and confusing the foundation of the family we invite our political leaders to give back to the institution of marriage and the family the recognition and confidence it deserves.

Here in Walsingham where across so many centuries of our history the sacredness of marriage and family were recognised in the example of the Holy Family of Nazareth, we wish to affirm in the words of Blessed John Paul II that “the Creator of all things has established marriage as the beginning and basis of human society” (Familaris Consortio 42)). May the gift of marriage and the family be held sacred by us all for the sake of every generation to come. 

Amen.

British Muslims launch petition to protest government's redefinition of marriage

Following on from the Coalition for Marriage petition (which at last count had 535731 signatures), the Muslim Council of Britain has launched a campaign to support natural marriage, which has been endorsed by SPUC. The petition launched by "Muslims Defending Marriage" states:

I disagree with the government’s proposed re-defining of marriage. I fully support the long-standing legal definition of marriage as the voluntary union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

This is good news as it makes the point - which should be obvious but clearly isn't - that it isn't just Christians who oppose proposals to redefine natural marriage.  I hope this new effort gains many signatures. Please point any Muslim friends in the direction of the website and petition.

This raises another interesting question: the Coalition for Marriage petition has well over half a million signatures, and yet has largely been ignored by the government and mainstream media. I wonder just how many signatures it will take before this latest petition makes the government sit up and pay attention. Just sayin'.

While the world carried on as usual...

...here, in the orchard, blogging slowed to a halt. The last couple of months have been exceptionally busy, and the pressing responsibilities of being a mother, wife and home educator have had to supersede the desire to blog. My senior blogging colleague, Mistress Mulier of Fortis, consoles me that it "doesn't matter" ... But Oh!  it jolly well does! Blogging is a little bit of 'me' detached from daily life: the blog matters to me, even if only about 10 people read it (hello in Stony Plain, Alberta!) . Getting it all out into cyberspace also saves me from muttering about things beneath my breath and being mistaken for a nutjob ("Never" you gasp!). This blog is one mother's green-ink letter to the world. Even if it isn't written in green ink. And even if only 10 people read it. And I know 8 of them.

Highlights of the past few weeks include a family retreat (Saint Catherine's Trust / LMS) to the Reading Oratory, a short surprise trip to Rome spent almost entirely in Saint Peter's Basillica, DD1's First Holy Communion, a week up North visiting relatives with the obligatory trip to the Dome of Home thrown in, and, most recently, a five day migrane which is just beginning to wane.

I promise to try to do better. I have some lovely photos from San Pietro which I'll attempt to put up in the next week or so, but most pressing is to join the "I am Sparticus" brigade (or, more aptly, "I am Cranmer") and support His Grace vs the ASA. If we don't act now to support our right to express support for marriage as it has been understood since the dawn of time, we risk losing the right to express our views on many more controversial issues.

Are you offended? Then why are you still here reading this?

Is this worth celebrating? Not really, but the re-conversion of England certainly would be

photo: Swanson Media

So in around four years the Act of Settlement (1701) will have been re-written and a Catholic will be able to marry the heir to the throne in England. Is this something worth celebrating? I asked my two daughters - 4 and 7 - what they thought, as it had a greater chance of affecting their lives than mine. My seven year old looked pensive for a moment and said "well, I suppose if the Catholic person who married the person who would be King could convert the King and he could convert the country then that might be a good thing, but otherwise I don't think that it really matters..."

She has a point. For a Catholic to marry the heir to the throne (who will henceforth be the oldest child, rather than the oldest son) s/he would almost certainly have to marry in the Church of England as s/he would be marrying the future "Defender of the Faith" and head of that sect. I'm not completely clear on this, but wouldn't that be an invalid marriage for a Catholic? And if you're a Catholic willing to participate in an invalid marriage then, surely, you're not that bound to your faith? So is today's news that a Catholic will soon be able to marry the heir to the throne, or that a lapsed / ex- / lukewarm Catholic will be able to marry the heir to the throne? Unless, of course, as my seven-year-old speculated, the Catholic may have ulterior motives and manage to convert the monarch and return England to her earlier and happier state as Mary's Dowry...

I suppose the fact that a piece of anti-Catholic discrimination dating back to the reign of William III will be removed from the statute books can only be considered a good thing. Until today's announcement takes effect, a satanist, an animist, an atheist or a Moonie can marry the heir to the throne, but a Catholic is forbidden to by law. Clearly this is no more than a symptom of the deep-seated Catholophobia from which Britain suffers. Weirdly, Catholicism is seen as the foreign interloper rather than the made-it-up-as-we-go-along strains of Protestantism that are widely considered to be more "native", even by thinking, educated people. It's as though Merrie Olde England only existed in legend before the Tudor period, as though England was simply waiting to be "liberated" from that foreign Catholicism by the hodge-podge of Luther and Calvin's ideas that formed and informed the various protestant sects that are now seen as "truly British". The only problem is that there wasn't much, er, British about either Calvin or Luther... In fact they were an awful lot less British than the native Catholic faith that had flourished for almost a thousand years and that these sects sought to supplant.

In fact here's a thought - the British Isles have been Catholic for much more of their history than they have been protestant: it isn't the Catholic faith that's the foreign upstart! Pray for the re-conversion of England and her neighbours!

O Mary! O Mother! Reign o'er us once more,

Be England thy Dowry as in days of yore.