RUMOUR HAS IT ?...

I was intrigued to see that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Extremely Reverend Justin Welby, had taken to the streets of Cambridge yesterday to become a `Big Issue` seller in order to publicise the Church of England`s efforts to cut homelessness.  In an interview with the magazine a while back, he criticised attitudes towards the homeless by successive Tory governments.

During his `Big Issue` flogging stint he said that, "Tackling poverty together is the essential work of a society where every person is truly valued."   As far as homelessness is concerned, he declared that "homelessness is an issue that matters profoundly to God."  So, rather than it being a rumour put around by people with nowhere to live, the issue of homelessness seems to be in good hands.  

Be that as it may, the Church of England is one of the country`s biggest landowners with an enormous estate which includes properties in villages, towns and cities across the country as well as over 100,000 acres of land in England and Wales.   Its property portfolio is worth at least £2billion and accounts for over a third of the £7billion assets it holds.  A few years ago, a report by the Centre for Theology & Community and the Christian campaigning group Housing Justice proposed that the Church of England `needs to put its house in order and sell off some of its land in response to Britain`s housing crisis.`

Perhaps it`s high time they acted on that advice - or are they waiting for Head Office to sort it out for them?   Asking for a friend.

 

DESIGN FAULTS...

Earlier in the week the report into alleged child sex abuse in the Anglican Church was published.  Now once again I have to tread carefully here, for it is not my wish or intention to cause any offence to anyone who might be, say, more devout in their beliefs than me.  Over the years I have mentioned that my approach to religion is one of guarded scepticism.  It is based on the notion that, if I ever get up there and discover that it`s all true after all, then I will be the first to apologise for having any doubts. 

But I think the report by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse chaired by Professor Alexis Jay, does perhaps add a little more legitimacy to my doubts about it all.  Now what is certain is that in the end I may not have a problem with God Almighty, save for the odd criticism of some design faults in humanity but I do have a genuine problem with His (or Her?) representatives on Earth.

I won`t go in to the details of the report - it has been widely covered in all kinds of media - but it itemised the many hundreds of cases of child abuse perpetrated over the years by clergy in the Anglican Church. I was interested in the Church`s response to the findings and the recommendations.  The report, having suggested that the Church was more inclined to safeguard its reputation than the wellbeing of the victims of abuse, made several recommendations including:-

- the Church of England should improve how it responds to complaints concerning safeguarding, for example by reintroducing a rule to expel any member of the clergy found guilty of child sexual abuse;

- responsibility for safeguarding should be taken out of the hands of diocesan bishops and given to safeguarding officers employed by the central hierarchy of the Church.

There were other recommendations besides those but Professor Jay said she hoped the report and recommendations would help to "ensure these failures never happen again."  The Church of England said the report "makes shocking reading" and that the institution "must learn lessons from this inquiry." 

Well that seems to be the standard response by any big organisation caught behaving in a less than acceptable manner.   But to prevent that happening in this case perhaps the Church should go for the belt and braces approach which would take away any safeguarding responsibility completely from within the Church itself and agree to an independent external Commission taking on the task for them.  That way perhaps yet another design fault can be avoided?  I`m sure head office would approve.

• 
  

I`ve had a car for six years and done a fair amount of miles but just recently it has been showing signs of anno domini and developed some annoying issues - making funny noises when I turn the steering wheel, a tendency not to start in cold weather (a bit like its owner) and just, but only just, struggling through the MoT thingy.  So in a wild fit of irresponsibility I decided it was time to change it and get a new one.  (I`ve noticed with all my previous cars that there came a point when it just felt right to change it, however `attached` to it I might have got.)

So I picked up the new car on Friday and I`m seriously chuffed with it - starts fine, no funny noises, drives like a dream and is nice and comfortable even if I have yet to get my head around all the bells and whistles.  And what happens?  Along comes corona virus and with it the threat that us oldies - who in any case are struggling to survive on a fixed income in challenging economic times - are likely to be confined to barracks for anything up to four months as HM Gov. tries to halt the spread of the virus. Result? Sooper dooper, high tech, state of the art, ocean going, whizzo new car likely to be stuck on the drive for the duration.  Bloody typical.

Now over the past year or so I`ve had my eyes sorted out - entropion problem remedied, both cataracts seen to and new glasses purchased to ensure my 20-20 vision.  The difference has been remarkable and I am hugely grateful for all the superb attention the NHS has provided for me.

But as Spring arrived I realised I needed sun glasses, especially for driving, so I ordered a pair to the same prescription as my `ordinary` pair.  I had a call from the optician to say the new sunglasses were ready to be collected, so I got them yesterday, since when the sun hasn`t shined and, as the car might be stuck in the drive I might not get to use them anyway.  Bloody typical.

Now I realise that God Almighty might have a downer on me anyway, due to my inbuilt scepticism and my reservations about His (or Her) design faults concerning the human body, but I think these latest events might either constitute divine retribution for my sins or they might simply confirm my scepticism and reservations after all?

NOT COMPULSORY...

I`ve long been an admirer of church architecture and the details you find inside even the smallest and most remote places of worship - for example, the bench ends at Holbeton in south Devon; the crossover at St. Anthony`s church on the Roseland; and the stained glass windows at St. Neot, all of which I have visited, enjoyed and been impressed with the skill and dedication that has gone into producing such treasures.

And arguably the most remarkable and attractive church I have come across is another one on Cornwall`s Roseland Peninsula.   Now being of sound mind and body (well, mind anyway) I have serious reservations about the authenticity of supreme beings - any number of religions seem to produce any number of allegedly supreme beings - and if there is one or even loads of them, then you have to ask why there is so much suffering in this world of ours.   But despite my obvious atheism or agnosticism (if I get up there and discover it was true after all, I`ll be the first to apologise) my admiration for the ambience of churches is enforced each time I return to St. Just in Roseland.

Here`s a photo I took on my last visit there - you can see what I mean, I hope - and perhaps agree that it is not always compulsory to become a member in order to enjoy what`s on offer:-

(As ever, please click on photo for better image)

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY...

I may have misread it but I thought I saw a report the other day that you can now ask Alexa to respond to  religious requests.  It seems that if you ask nicely Alexa will provide you with a `prayer for the day` and even recite grace for you before you tuck in to a hearty meal.

It`s a curious business, especially as we now seem to have a piece of artificial semi-intelligence at our disposal to enable some kind of virtual communication with an omnipotent being who may or may not actually exist anyway.

Phasers on stun Mr. Sulo.

.....but I`m not sure what it is.   It might be that, for the very first time, I find myself at least partly in agreement with Ann Widdecombe with whom, over the years, I have taken issue over such items as her MPs` expenses and her cringe inducing appearances in those bastions of civilised culture that are Strictly Come Dancing, Celebrity Big Brother and assorted pantomimes.

However, during a recent interview, she said she was `worried` about Meghan Markle, suggesting that the foreign, mixed race, divorced catholic who is allegedly brightening up our lives with her impending marriage to Prince Harry, is `trouble`due to her `background and attitude.`  Moreover, La Widdecombe has now questioned the wisdom of fast tracking Ms. Markle from Catholicism into the Church of England in order to overcome a matrimonial obstacle.

Ms. Widdecombe goes on, saying "Hang on a second, Archbishop of Canterbury - was Ms. Markle already planning to avail herself of these sacraments because she had been converted to such beliefs, or is this just a matter of form now that she is marrying a royal?  Surely that is a question that matters."   Writing in the Catholic Herald, she continues, "Had the Church taken into account the previous marriage and divorce?  But that just pales into insignificance beside the question of baptism and confirmation, both of which sacraments require commitment and belief.  Where is the evidence Miss Markle would have adopted such procedures had she not been about to marry a prince of the realm....a wedding is holy matrimony, not just a gigantic fancy dress parade."

So there we have it.  Now, it seems reasonable to ask the question as to why and how the sudden change from the Brothers Grimm to Hans Christian Anderson has occurred so quickly, so nice one Ann Widdecombe.   But today I see there is more Markle news.   She is reported to have secretly been `comforting` the survivors of the Grenfell fire disaster, which I am sure is indeed a great comfort to them.  But I wonder if, once again, yet another delicious irony has been overlooked as she dispenses her comfort dressed in a £1995 coat over a pair of £290 trousers.

Something is not quite right somewhere in all of this.

THE DELIGHTS OF IRONY...

The above illustration, well, illustrates what I mean.   And there are countless examples of really delightful irony.  Some while ago I showed a photo of a direction sign pointing the way to `HIDDEN BEACH.`   Another was the road sign in Essex directing traffic to `SECRET NUCLEAR BUNKER.`

But the prize for this week`s unforced error must surely go to His Holiness Pope Francis.  Yesterday, he described fake news as being `evil` and accused peddlers of disinformation of employing `snake tactics`similar to Satan who, when disguised as a serpent, tempted Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree.

"This was the strategy employed by the `crafty serpent` in the Book of Genesis and who, at the dawn of humanity, created the first fake news," said Pope Francis - the first discourse of any pope on the topic.  "Fake news had a damaging, serpentine allure," he went on, calling it "that sly and dangerous form of seduction that worms its way into the heart with false and alluring arguments."

Nice one, Frank.  But I just wonder whether the delicious irony of the head of an organisation - one that thrives on myths involving serpents, forbidden fruit and forceful temptation - complaining about fake news, has struck home. At least here in chez Snoppeur it has been duly recognised.

POTS AND KETTLES...

Of course, it`s the traditionally `done thing` on this the first day of 2018 to wish everyone a happy new year and I do so quite genuinely and unreservedly.  So, Happy New Year to you and yours.

The alleged `festive season` is thankfully drawing to a close and being a curmudgeonly cynic, a few things have come to light in the past week or so to make me wonder whether people have deliberately turned to irony in their quest for attention. 

Perhaps the best example has emerged from the Vatican where it is reported that His Holiness Pope  Francis is going to deliver his annual communications message.  In it, he will decree that made up stories -`fake news` - is `a serious sin.`  He has reminded journalists that they must provide precise, complete, correct and unbiased reports and not fall into the `sins of communication,` disinformation or just giving one side of the story.  Such actions, he said, are ` a grave sin` that hurts the hearts of others as well as the journalists themselves.

And all this coming from the appointed head of yet another organisation that thrives on being based on myth, legend, fairy tales and threats of dire consequences if you don`t believe them.  Anyway, thank God someone has taken the unprecedented step of speaking out against made up stories that have no bearing in fact but are nevertheless taken as gospel.

Oh, and by the way, please be assured that my good wishes to you for 2018 are entirely genuine, precise, complete, correct and unbiased.  Honest.

ONCE UPON A TIME...

There was a lot of fuss over the weekend as a result of 84 Bishops having sent a letter to the Prime Minister as long ago as August demanding that the UK Government increases the number of migrants/refugees from Syria to 50,000.   The Government`s current stance is that the UK is committed to taking 20,000 from the refugee camps as well as continuing as the second most generous aid donor to help with the refugee crisis in that part of the world.

What is surprising is that the Government did not respond to the Bishops` plea until yesterday and that indeed is disappointing.   But perhaps what is even more surprising is that there are 84 Bishops to sign the letter in the first place.   Seems an extraordinary number of bishops for a relatively small country.   Something like three might be enough at, say, the Church of England`s HQ at Canterbury, another in branch offices at York and maybe Exeter, which would cover most of the country.

There was a time, many many years ago, when I suppose people accepted the role of the church as part of the way things were.  It was looked upon, almost unthinkingly, as an institution that commanded respect, one which was there to bring comfort and joy to the lives of countless believers, although even then in my bewildering childhood I wasn`t at all sure what I was supposed to believe in.

As the years have gone on, however, I have had a good think about all that and I have formed my own attitude towards pretty much all things religious.  I`m fairly sure that religion is responsible for most of humankind`s wars, repression and misery over the centuries and, as aficionados of these pages will know, whilst I have no quarrel or inkling as to the existence of an omnipotent being, I have many reservations about His or Her representatives down here on Earth.   Of course if, when the time comes, I find myself at the pearly gates then I`ll be the first to apologise for harbouring any doubts.  Seems fair enough.

But I think what really gets to me is all the pomp and circumstance, the rituals, the mystique, the smoke and mirrors and the attitudes of the established church and all its teachings churned out by these purveyors of fairy tales, these pedlars of myth, these illusionists.  I may, once upon a time, have believed in fairy tales, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus and all that jazz, but once you set aside childish things you come to realise that all those hopes and dreams were themselves illusions, like so much of religious practices.   

So, whilst the Government`s delay in responding to the blatant entry into the political realm by a bunch of self-centred bishops might have been disappointing, perhaps they were right after all in not giving too much credence to the plea for another random, arbitrary refugee figure, which contributes little to the real humanitarian shambles we see today.

IT`S THE BISHOP !!..

Watch out.  The House of Bishops are issuing a letter to urge parishioners to vote at the General Election and are calling for a debate on issues such as nuclear defence and the economy.   The Bishops are expected to back the concept of a living wage and urge political parties to refrain from turning groups such as immigrants and those on benefits into scapegoats.   They are also expected to say that the case for the Trident nuclear deterrent needs to be re-examined and that more EU integration is needed.

Now, of course, the Bishops are not claiming to tell people how to vote but rather why people should bother to vote at all.   The Bishop of Buckingham, Dr. Alan Wilson, said that their letter was aimed at addressing the feeling of "cynicism and disenchantment with professional politicians" and to help voters "take a fresh look at things."

Sounds a bit plausible, but if their main aim in issuing the letter is simply to encourage people to think before they vote, then why not just say that, given that they should  say anything at all that might brand them with accusations of political interference?   As it is, the`shopping list` of issues they have quite openly referred to will surely make voters think that the Bishops have a political agenda all of their own.  Pity the law does not permit them to put up their own candidates. 

Such is my own cynicism and disenchantment that the only worry I have in making any sort of comment about Bishops and their ilk, is that I might find myself waking up in a future life as a Manchester United fan, which must surely be the ultimate in eternal damnation.  

MIXED BLESSINGS ?..

God knows I`m the last one to comment on religion, but a couple of things caught my eye this weekend.   The first is that at last it seems the Church of England is going to allow women to become Bishops.  Now I have absolutely no idea why they have not been `allowed` before now but I suspect there might be some deep philosophical reason based on some arcane biblical text...or it might just be because they are just women.  Either way it`s all a bit daft and so for serial doubters like me it`s an encouraging sign that at last the church seem to be dragging themselves into the 21st century.   Good for them.

The other thing that puzzled me was the report that the BBC is revamping its long running programme, "Songs of Praise," which has been televised from churches across the land for decades.  It will drop its traditional format of an Anglican service recorded in a cathedral or parish church and instead will feature a range of churches, locations, congregations and choirs.  The BBC`s head of religion and ethics, Aaquil Ahmed, said, "A different form of Christianity" had emerged in the UK.  Quite so.

Maybe the change of format for this much loved programme should not come as a surprise but what does is the discovery that the BBC`s head of religion is, in fact, a Muslim.  Now it seems Mr. Ahmed has been in post for some time and I have no doubt that he`s a decent man, kind to animals and old people and I mean no disrespect to him personally, but you have to wonder why someone who is not of the faith of the established church in this country is in this job.

On the other hand, like so many other things, it`s all very BBC, of course, so nothing should come as a surprise.  Thank God I don`t pay the compulsory licence fee any more.

BLESS YOU MY SON..

Well, the backlash from our recent encounter with the travelling community lingers on it seems.   The local weekly newspaper was published this morning and it included quite a chunky article about the incident, detailing the experiences of the authorities to get them to move along, the measures taken to clean up the site and the steps being taken to try to prevent a recurrence.  

The article also  included a quote from the local vicar, who reportedly said, "They were good people.  They have a different way of living to the rest of us."   Now I`m quite sure the vicar has been misquoted for surely he has the best interests of his flock at the forefront of his concerns, rather than those of itinerant malcontennts who caused criminal damage, behaved inexcusably and caused great distress to local residents.  Otherwise it raises once again the priorities of Her representatives on Earth.

Also today a letter from no less than four local Borough Councillors has arrived with the intention of clearly setting out the action apparently taken by the Council to resolve the problems caused by the arrival of our travelling friends.  I earnestly hope that this issue is not becoming one which is reduced to political points scoring.   Otherwise it raises once again the innate shallowness of local politicians, who are prone to the misguided notion that local residents/electors are impressed by such defensive gestures.

Breaking news from the Vatican is that a couple of ex-Popes are going to be elevated to the sainthood.   It`s a weird thing being religious;  not something I`m really into given my own personal philosophy that if, when my clogs are finally popped, I get up there and find it`s all true, then I`ll be quick to apologise for having had any doubts.

And it`s things like turning ex-Popes into saints that confirms my belief (yes, I do have a few) that whilst I`m in no position to question the existence of an omnipotent being responsible for it all, then his, her or its representatives on earth leave me puzzled.   Religion has, of course, over the centuries been responsible for wars, the denial and suppression of education and realism, never mind the `issues` that the industry of religion has faced, or rather not faced up to, in recent times.....or maybe it was forever thus?

In some ways, religion reminds me of the Premier League - `the best league in the world`(tm) - determined to market its brand and its product to a largely captive audience, leading its disciples to a land of milk and honey whilst at the same time involved in practices that regularly bring the game into disrepute.

Now it seems that to obtain sainthood requires the candidates to go through a tortuous process involving them having had to be extremely pious, getting nominated by a live Pope and having a couple of miracles attributed to their name.   And it`s at that point that we enter the realms of the tooth fairy with `miracles` they have performed having been identified to speed their passage towards their saintly elevation.  

It seems that Pope John Paul II was responsible for the inexplicable recovery of a French nun, one Sister Marie Simon-Pierre Normand, who was apparently dying of Parkinson`s disease but was cured after she and her fellow nuns prayed for the intercession of the late John Paul II who had himself died of the same disease.  Then there was a second miracle, this time in the case of a 50-year old Costa Rican woman, Floribeth Mora, who claimed she was cured of a brain aneurysm after a photograph of John Paul apparently spoke to her with doctors later claiming that the aneurysm seemed to have disappeared for no apparent reason.

Similarly the miracle attributed to Pope John XXXIII also involved curing a woman and it seems that, in his case, that will do as no second `miracle` appears to be needed as he was such a good egg.  Seems coincidental that these miraculous events always involve healing women - never any mention of teams avoiding relegation or gaining promotion on the last day of the season.  Each of these identified papal miracles happened, of course, after the respective Popes had died so the whole business becomes even more obscure.   But then the catholic church, like other churches, has always dealt in arcane rituals and bizarre mystique, so why should the process of turning dead Popes into saints be any different?

Of course I already know all about the rebuttals that those who believe in all that stuff will trot out in response to my own disbelief and I don`t wish to offend anyone, since we all have the freedom to choose what we believe and what we don`t.   But maybe, in the end, the most astonishing miracle of all is that people actually do believe in all this earthly hokum rather than, like me, keeping their options open for when they might come in handy in the great unknown.

WHO ARE YOU ?

Pope Francis has apparently said that gay people should not be marginalised but should be integrated into society.   Flying home from his visit to Brazil, he reaffirmed to reporters that the Roman Catholic Church continues to consider homosexual acts as sinful, but that homosexual orientation was not.   He responded to questions as to whether there was a `gay lobby` in the Vatican by declaring that "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"

Well, Frank, you are the Almighty`s head honcho in Rome, so I guess you`re in a better position than anyone else to make that judgement.......or is that a glazed expression I detect in your photograph?

ROLE REVERSAL ?

Recent pronouncements have created at least the illusion that various pillars of our society are confused about their respective roles in the well being of our alleged society.

First, according to former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, David Cameron `has told religious leaders that they should stand up and oppose aggressive secularisation when it appears that Cameron`s Government is aiding and abetting the aggression every step of the way.`   Now it may or may not be true but there seems little doubt that the penchant for politicians to curry popularity over such issues as gay marriage and religious freedom does little to deny the notion that they stray too often into matters best left to church leaders.

And in what appears to be a tit-for-tat rejoinder, the new Archbishop of Canterbury is going on about Cyprus, the euro and how awful it is that the Government is introducing welfare and benefit reforms,  which does little to deny the notion that church leaders are straying into matters best left to politicians.

I hope these and other examples of attention seeking don`t lead to an all out popularity contest.   If so, I think I know who will come out worse off....and it won`t be either of them, but the rest of us.   At least we know our place.   Don`t we?

A TEN YEAR WAIT..

It`s a big day here in deepest Kent with the inauguration (if that`s the right word) of Justin Welby as the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury.   There will be much pomp, circumstance, ceremony and symbolism in the proceedings  this afternoon in Canterbury Cathedral.   But perhaps not quite as much as at the Vatican just a few days ago when Pope Francis accepted the job.

There are a couple of ironies here though.   The first is that you wait ten years for this kind of pageant and then two come along at pretty much the same time. The other more important one is that Justin Welby`s ceremony of `enthronement` will be performed by a Venerable lady Archdeacon of Canterbury Cathedral, Sheila Watson, but still the Archbishop will not be the head of the Church of England, which role is, of course, for Her Majesty the Queen.  Fid def and all that.

So we end up with an Archbishop enthroned by a woman to a Church headed by another woman but yet women are still not permitted to become bishops of the same church.  For a cynic like me, the antics of these religious organisations grow ever curiouser and curiouser.  Maybe Justin will bring a change and an end to at least this inequality but I suspect he may be in for a bumpy ride.   Hold very tight, please.  Ding, ding.

A WEEK OF TWO HALVES..

It`s been a week of two halves for Argentina.   First they got stuffed in the referendum on the Falkland Islands, when only three of the resident population voted not to remain British.   (No wonder successive British Prime Ministers, despite solemn promises, shy away from giving us a referendum of whether we in the UK want to stay British or be subsumed into the farcical parallel universe of Brussels.)

Now Argentina have their very own Pope at last.   A wait of over 1,000 years finally sees the Pope hailing from outside Europe so there`s much dancing in the streets of Buenos Aires right now.   But of course, events in the Vatican have exposed yet another parallel universe, one seemingly governed by hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo and smoke and mirrors.

My own religious views are well documented in these pages so I won`t go on about it out of respect for those who do believe in the fairy tales, the pagan myths and the arcane process by which His Popeness has been selected.   But it has always puzzled me as to how God`s representatives on earth can bring the game into disrepute to the extent they have and yet still elect someone who changes his name, acquires the ability to never be wrong about anything ever and gets worshipped as though he was the real thing.  Goodness knows what Her Upstairs thinks about it.  Now, if the new Pope had chosen the name, say, Eric, renounced his infallibility and made Lionel Messi a Saint, then he might have got off to a good start.

Which brings me on to football and the plight of Southampton`s Argentinian manager, one Mauricio Pochettino, who took over the reins from the inestimable Nigel Adkins a few short weeks ago.   Pochettino`s record so far has been `mixed` with just one win in seven games although he has achieved something I don`t recall ever happening before.   The fracas at the end of last week`s game at Norwich saw a gang of Saints players along with Pochettino and presumably his interpreter haranguing referee Mark Clattenburg for awarding Norwich a dodgy penalty.

The fact that the penalty was saved didn`t deter Pochettino & Co. from their harangue which has resulted in the Saints being charged by the Football Association for `failing to control their players.`   This is the first time in over 60 years of following the Saints that I can ever recall such a charge being levied against my club and it might say much about the new attitude prevailing at St. Mary`s.

I suspect, however, that the Football Association may have picked the wrong target as Executive Chairman Nicola Cortese has built up a reputation for odd decisions, with the sacking of Nigel Adkins not only the oddest but also one which could yet see the Saints drop out of yet another parallel universe - that of the Premier League.   Maybe the Saints should be charged with `failing to control their Chairman?`   Football - the one true religion - could yet point the way to redemption;   but I`ve long since given up believing that dreams come true.

LEAP OF FAITH..

Now that the Pope has jacked it in, the Catholic Church has a rare opportunity to get up to date, move with the times and reflect modern day living here on Planet Earth.  It will involve something of a risk, of course, but no pain, no gain.  All that`s needed is a leap of faith.

The jostling for position is doubtless going on behind the splendiferous façade of the Vatican, but the leading contenders for the Popeship will mostly be getting-on-a-bit, male, possibly Italian and already high up in the hierarchy - Cardinals of whom there are 200 or so, along with a packed bench of substitutes, eager to come on for a game changing cameo.   All the usual suspects, in other words - jobs for the boys once more.

So, how about a more up to date approach, perhaps more becoming of the twitter, f***book, i-pad, Costa coffee age in which we live?   Stand out candidates might then include Tony Blair, Jose Mourinho and even Ann Widdecombe, all of whom have already convinced themselves, after much practice, that they have the right aptitude for the job.

Then again, if the Church wants to be really assertive and show the kind of leadership demanded in this modern era, maybe they should grasp the nettle, take the leap of faith and go ahead and appoint a disabled, black lesbian to the job.   That`ll show `em and, after all, as they already believe in fairy tales, why shouldn`t this one come true?

FID DEF....

Look at a coin of the realm and most of them bear the inscription `FID DEF.`  It literally means `Defender of the Faith` and signifies the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is the supreme ruler of the Church of England, thus outranking the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Now not for the first time in these pages I reveal my attitude towards religion, which whilst engagingly simple is also entirely practical.   For example, my uncertainties are such that I have developed the philosophy that if, when my clogs are finally popped, I get up there and discover it was all true after all, then I`ll be the first to apologise for harbouring any doubts.   

But moreover I have long held the conviction that, even if I have no quarrel with Him/Her Upstairs (and hopefully the feeling may be mutual) I really do have a problem with His/Her representatives down here.  All of which conspires to restrict my visits to church to the holy trinity of weddings, baptisms and funerals.  In short, I find the whole business to be a puzzlement, which has grown even more so with the recent shenanigans at the Church of England`s General Synod.

You see, I find it curious that an organisation with a woman as its supreme ruler can actually conspire to prevent women becoming bishops.   It took long enough for them to allow women to become priests and it looks as if there will be yet another long delay before common sense finally prevails and women bishops are `allowed.`   Surely if any other organisation behaved like that they would find the equal opportunities legislation coming down on them like there was no tomorrow.

But never mind what I think about it, I wonder how the Queen feels about it, as she is charged with defensoring the fidei - to be fair, she looks pretty glum as she faces FID DEF on the coin - but it ain`t no way to run a railroad, especially one that seems to be falling off the tracks and plunging  into even deeper irrelevance. And wouldn`t it be the ultimate irony if Him Upstairs turned out to be Her?

FOILED AGAIN !!

Yesterday was Maundy Thursday, another in a long line of quaint English days and it`s the day when the reigning monarch dishes out money - "alms" -  to `deserving senior citizens.`   The coins are distributed in red and white purses, shown above.   The white purse contains currency in the amount of one penny for each year of the Sovereign`s age - this year 86!  The red purse contains regular currency and is given in place of food and clothing.


Now, I`ve been a `senior citizen` for quite a few years now so I was intrigued to find out how the senior citizens are chosen to receive the royal `Maundy Money` and it seems that the whole thing is actually a religious service in the Church of England, held on Maundy Thursday, the day before today - Good Friday.   Years ago, quite reasonably, recipients used to be chosen for their poverty and as such were entitled to receive the Maundy money for life.   These days, predictably enough, new recipients are chosen each year for their service to their churches and their communities, on the recommendation of clergymen of various Christian denominations.


All of which clearly explains how I am continually overlooked, since my religious philosophies do not sit comfortably with the established church.   It`s really quite simple.   Like everyone else, I have no absolute certainty of an omnipotent being but if I eventually get up there and find it`s all true after all, then I`ll be the first to apologise.  And although I may have no problem with the ultimate disclosure of the omnipotent being`s existence, I`m afraid I do have a problem with his (or her) representatives on earth.


And so I guess I will continue to be foiled in matters of the Maundy handout, especially as I struggle with the contradiction of sending `Happy Easter` cards to people when I thought the whole Easter business was about a crucifixion.   How happy is that?


Have a nice weekend!