Three reasons to welcome the Pope and three reasons to object

Mouse has been struck by the failure of the government to even attempt to make the case for the state visit of the Pope in just over two weeks time.  The build up to the visit has been dominated by anti-Pope protestors noisily shouting that the Pope is not worthy of the honour of a state visit on the one hand, and dispairing Catholics on the other, publicly venting at the poor organisation that has plagued the preparations so far.

There has been just one voice of reason in all this - Lord Patten, the man appointed by the government to oversee preparations for the visit.  This voice has so far been drowned out by those with different agendas.  Lord Patten has explained in simple terms why it is important to forge close relations with the Vatican in order to further our foreign policy objectives, and has been open that the preparations have been 'more complex' than imagined.

Mouse is no apologist for the Pope, and has been critical in the past, so now offers up his three reasons to welcome the Pope and three reasons to object.  Naturally these are coming from Mouse's own perspective as an Anglican, but he offers them up to attempt to take the debate forward just a little.

We should welcome the Pope because:

1. The Catholic Church must be an important partner in crucial development work in Africa.  Lord Patten points out that the Catholic Church and church groups, provide around 25% of school education and 25% of health-care in sub-Saharan Africa (Mouse cannot verify this - if anyone has a link please post in the comments, but there is plenty which verifies the overall thrust).  It is also not widely known that the Catholic church also provides extensive support to AIDS sufferers in Africa as well.  The same pattern can be found in many other key development regions, where the position of the Catholic Church puts them in a unique position which cannot be ignored if we are to live up to our international obligations and moral duties to support humanitarian work and development in the third world.

2. Britain should support grass-roots Catholic movements for democracy around the world, and must work with the Pope on these issues.  This is particularly the case in South America, where the Catholic church is on the one hand deeply embedded across the region.  But on the other hand some Catholic priests are at the forefront of a number of movements which are challenging the political elites and siding with the poor and marginalised.  These movements, and the role of the Catholic Church are not straight-forward or without ambiguity, but it is clear that that Church has an important role to play, and any foreign policy objectives in the region would be advanced by closer ties with the Vatican.

3. Building a "Big Society" at home requires engagement with the Catholic Church.  Relations between the government and the Catholic Church have been dented recently, particularly with the change to the law which effectively ruled out Catholic adoption agencies.  If David Cameron is smart, and Mouse reckons he is, he will use his time with the Pope to ask for his support in building the Big Society, and possibly a bit of Catholic cash too.  Catholics have always been socially active and many fantastic local services to the poor and needy of the parish, and the previous government failed to engage with these people through initiatives like the New Deal for Communities.  Cameron knows that these people have more to offer, and should ask for the Pope's support to mobilise this volunteer army.

We should object because:

1. A number of senior Catholics should no longer be in their jobs following the abuse scandal.  In Ireland, the Pope has refused to accept the resignations of auxiliary bishops Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field, which has purplexed many, as the bishops themselves recognised that their resignations would help rebuild the desparately damaged reputation of the Church there.  It is a matter of consternation for many others that Cardinal Brady is still in his job in Ireland, after having apologised for his handling of some cases, but not offered his resignation.  Mouse is less familiar with the situation in other countries, but suspects that the argument holds elsewhere too.  To rebuild trust in the Church, there needs to be some accountability, which means some in senior roles should lose their jobs.

2. The approach taken to the establishment of the Ordinariate put many Anglican noses out of joint.  The Ordinariate is the mechanism established by Pope Benedict to allow Anglican-friendly zones within the Catholic church, to encourage the conversion of Catholic minded Anglicans.  Many Anglicans are very comfortable with the arrangement overall, but the lack of consultation with the Anglican hierarchy meant that it felt like an aggressive move on the Anglican Church, which Mouse does not believe it was.

3. The Pope should acknowledge that bringing Bishop Williamson back into the Catholic fold was a mistake.  For those unfamiliar with this move, it came about when the Pope recognised the Society of St Pius X, and allowed them to take communion in Catholic Churches, after they split away from Rome many years ago.  In itself this was not particularly controversial, until it emerged that one of the bishops of the society was a holocaust denier.  All hell broke loose following this, and it turned out that the Vatican was unaware of his views prior to the move.  The Vatican tacitly acknowledged a cock-up but offered no apology and did not reverse the decision.

Please consider donating

Sunday reflection

With kind permission from Devotions ChopChop.

In Matters of the Tongue

A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret.Proverbs 11:13

Have you ever been hurt by gossip? Of course you have.

Have you ever hurt anyone by your gossip? Probably. So why do we continue to do it. Hundreds of verses remind us to guard our tongues but we still gossip. Why?

An even more insidious thing we do is to say, “if that person were here, I’d say the same thing.” Perhaps you would, but why don’t you wait until the person comes and find out?

Even in these last few verses, we see that God is showing us how hurtful and destructive our tongue can be.

Will we one day have an epiphany and discover that God was right all along about our tongues? Probably not, but it’s to remind ourselves of our dependence upon Him in matters of the tongue.

Please consider donating

Church Mouse religious news quiz of the week

Here's this week's religious news quiz from the Church Mouse.  You can also play the quiz here.

Please consider donating

National Secular Society want to ban RE from schools

Mouse often reads the latest updates from the National Secular Society, just to monitor the news from across the religious spectrum.  Usually he simply shakes his head and occasionally tuts, but yesterday his jaw dropped, and he decided that the nonsense written there was worthy of having a little light shone on it.

The NSS decided that they needed to respond to the growth in the number of students sitting RE exams at GCSE (no mention of similar growth at A-Level).  Clearly the explanation offered by the good old CofE, that this reflects a growing interest in religious issues amongst the young, doesn't fit with the NSS narrative, so they quickly discounted this explanation.  They did however embrace the explanation offered by a newspaper columnist.  RE exams are easier than other subjects, so students are taking the subject to take advantage of this 'loophole'.

Evidence.  None.

By way of counter evidence, Mouse refers to the proportion of students achieving the various grades.  They are very much in line with those for other mainstream subjects.  If it was easier, you would expect to see a higher proportion of students achieving higher grades.

But this insult to our nations education system, teachers, exam boards and students was not the piece that really shocked the Mouse.  It was the quote from NSS President, Terry Sanderson, in which he called for the banning of Religious Education from the national curriculum and from the British education system that caused the real shock.

This latest bit of flim-flam from the Church of England should be seen for what it is – a manipulation of the truth. We need investment in teaching, but in teachers who are going to equip pupils for real life. Religious Education is the province of the church and if it is going to be carried out, it should be in religious premises on a voluntary basis. RE should not be permitted to consume huge amounts of the shrinking education budgets so badly needed for the imparting of real knowledge and skills.

The traditional position of secularists is that religious education is important, but that it should be taught from an impartial perspective, and should include the teaching of non-religious view points.  Mouse's view is that it is impossible to understand British culture, literature and art without some basic understanding of Christianity, and it is impossible to understand world affairs without a basic understanding of the world's major religions.  It is impossible to understand different cultures and communities within Britain without an understanding of their faiths, and in fact a failure to teach these subjects would be deeply dangerous and would create a major risk to community cohesion.

Mouse is stunned that the NSS really believe that the best approach to take to religion is to prevent young people from understanding it by taking it out of the school education system.

Utterly extraordinary.

 Please consider donating

Koran burning event is too extreme for a right wing extremist militia

Mouse was pretty shocked by this story as it emerged, and decided not to blog about it some time ago.  However, events seem to have developed into an absurd farce, so here we go.

It emerged some time ago that a fundamentalist church in Florida, the Dove World Outreach Centre, was planning to hold an open air Koran burning event to mark the anniversary of 9/11, backed up by Senior Pastor Terry Jones' book "Islam is of the devil".  They even tried to describe it as an international Koran burning day.  Pretty twisted stuff, you may think, and particularly so for a church.  For a church which calls itself a "World Outreach Centre" its beyond a joke.

Not surprisingly, they came in for a fair bit of flack from most people with a brain.

What happened next took events from the bizarre to the unbelievable (and Mouse is still half expecting someone to point out that this is a spoof).  Dove World Outreach Centre got a bit worried about their safety during this event, so arranged for a right wing extremist militia to be present to ensure their security.  Right Wing Extreme (yes there really is a group in the US called that) have now pulled out of the event, however.  They have decided that the event "does not glorify God".  In a surreal press release they as their "brothers and sisters in Christ" at the Dove World Outreach Centre to call off the event, as it may hinder their witness to Muslims.

Well spotted chaps, but Mouse suggests you put the remainder of your activities under that particular microscope.

h/t Christianity Today

Please consider donating

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week.

1. Bishop Nick Baines reckons the BBC needs a religion editor

2. Damian Thompson on media antagonism to the Papal visit (and those are not his words)

3. Ekklesia blog on Greenbelt (winning the award for self promotion in a 'news' item this week)

4. Clayboy comes up with a disclaimer that we would all do well to adopt

5. BRIN have the final word on religious affiliation and voting in the 2010 general election

6. eChurch Christian blog on possible anti-Christian bias at CBBC (really)

7. Drayton Parslow on King James, England and St George

8. The Church Sofa takes a stand for 20-something blokes in the church

9. Revd Lesley on mistaking hatred for religion

10. The Benedictine Nuns of East Hendred champion niceness

Please consider donating

Do atheist doctors kill more and religious doctors leave us dying in pain?

All over the blogs this morning is the story that the religious beliefs of our doctors impacts on the way they care for patients at the end of their lives.  The short version, which naturally hides much of the subtlety of the research, is that doctors who believe in God are less likely to take action which may hasten the death of a patient than those who do not believe in God.

To explain that more fully, the research showed that doctors who do not believe in God are more likely to make interventions with patients such as 'deep sedation' which may hasten the point of death as a result of that intervention.

The reaction to this research has been fascinating.  The reaction from religious blogs has broadly been outrage that atheist doctors may be killing people, allowing their worldview to impact their clinical judgement and act in a way which is contrary to the primary responsibility of a doctor to preserve life.  On the other hand the British Humanist Association have responded that they are outraged that religious doctors may be allowing their religious beliefs to cloud their clinical judgements, and may not be acting in the best interests of their patients or following NHS guidance.

Bishop Nick Baines responds to the news with the view that it is hardly a shock that religious belief impacts on the choices we make.  Of course not, but it is a shock that the clinical decisions of doctors is impacted.  No-one would be surprised if doctors bed-side manner varied with religious belief, but decisions on treatment are a little different.

Mouse thinks it is clearly wrong for your belief as to the existence of God to make a difference to the way you treat a patient, whether it is to hasten a person's death because you think that is in their best interest, or to withhold pain relief because you think preserving life more important.  What this shows, however, is not that atheists or religious doctors are driven by dogma and are recklessly forcing their world-view on their patients, but that the current framework within which doctors operate allows for their judgement to be applied.  If we are going to accept that it is up to doctors to make these difficult decisions, then we must accept that different doctors will come to different decisions, even when faced with the same circumstances.  Religion may be one way in which we could segment these differences, but it would not be surprising if these decisions varied by the age of the doctor, gender or any other number of factors.

It seems a shame to Mouse when this type of research emerges, and it is immediately used as a stick by either atheists or the religious to beat the other with and demonstrate how monstrous a people they really are at heart.  This is particularly so with this issue, as we are talking about people who have dedicated their lives to caring for others and preserving life, and we are discussing the way they make the most difficult decisions possible about how to treat someone who is very near the end of their life.

Please consider donating

Top 20 twittering clergy in the Church of England

Its been a while since Mouse's last update on the top twittering bishops and vicars, so here you go.

Mouse had to double and triple check Bishop Alan Wilson's score this month, as he registered full marks - the first time anyone in the Twurch has done so.  This took Bishop Alan back to the top spot, nudging out Archbishop John Sentamu.

There are quite a few new entries in the top 20 (actually top 23 this month, due to tied scores), so wellcome to Ali Mepham, Simon Rundell, Frog Orr-Ewing, Lesley Fellows, Richard Johnson and Steve Griffiths.

Scores come from Twitter Grader, and if you're interested Mouse's score is 99.5. 

Name	Twitter name	Grade
1. Rt Rev Alan Wilson	alantlwilson	100
2. Mst Rev John Sentamu	johnsentamu	99.5
3. Rev Maggi Dawn	maggidawn	97.5
4. Rt Rev Pete Broadbent	pete173	96.9
5. Rt Rev Nick Baines	nickbaines	96.3
6. Rev Alastair McCollum	revdal	95.8
7. Rev David Alexander	stopsleyvicar	95.2
7. Rev Paul Walker	paulwalker71	95.2
7. Rev Peter Ould	pould	95.2
10. Rev Arun Arora	revarun	94
10. Rev David Keen	davidmkeen	94
10. Rev James Ogley	riggwelter	94
10. Rev Kathryn Fleming	goodinparts	94
10. Rev Robb Sutherland	changingworship	94
15. Rev Evan Cockshaw	pastorev	93
15. Rev Phillip Ritchie	philritchie	93
15. Rev Simon Rundell	frsimon	93
18. Rev Ali Mepham	kneewax	91
18. Rev Frog Orr-Ewing	missionalfrog	91
18. Rev Jeremy Parsons	jdap	91
18. Rev Lesley Fellows	revdlesley	91
18. Rev Richard Johnson	richjohnson	91
18. Rev Steve Griffiths	stmaryslinton	91

Please consider donating

A new Catholic cover-up?

News from the inquiry into the Claudy bombing in Northern Ireland in 1972 by the Police Ombudsman has been dominated by the question of whether there was a cover up by the Catholic Church.  Mouse simply cannot see how this stacks up at all.

The question has arisen as a result of the transfer of Fr James Chesney out of Northern Ireland and into the Republic, whilst he was suspected of involvement in the bombing.

Now, firstly this appears to have been done with the agreement (if not at the request) of the police and Northern Ireland secretary.  Surely at any time other than immediately prior to the arrival of the Pope in the UK, this would be headlined as a government and police cover up.  However, the bigger point, which has been made by Cardinal Brady, is that the transfer of Fr Chesney did not stop the police investigating.  In fact, the police stopped investigating, in spite of their suspicions, raised the matter with government and the church, and were actively involved in the transfer of Fr Chesney.

Northern Ireland in 1972 was a pretty dreadful place with these events taking place just six months after Bloody Sunday.  No doubt the authorities were working hard to avoid the incendiary situation of arresting a Catholic Priest.  The recent history of Northern Ireland is full of dark secrets, and some pretty tough decisions have been made in the name of peace.  This seems to be another in that category, but Mouse reckons that headlining this as a 'Catholic cover-up' is looking for a scandal where a tragedy is to be found.

Please consider donating

New comments policy

Until now Mouse has required all users to log-in before leaving a comment.  This was purely to prevent spam.  Now that Blogger have installed a spam filter for comments, Mouse is experimenting with a new open door policy, so anyone can comment, including anonymous users.

For the avoidance of doubt here's Mouse's policy on comments:

1. If you behave, Mouse won't delete

2. Mouse will delete comments which are spam, clearly offensive or are potentially libellous

3. Anything in Chinese is gone as soon as Mouse can get to it - sorry if it is genuine, but since Mouse can't read it, he assumes its spam

Other than that, Mouse is happy to let comments stand.

Please consider donating

Scottish Bible Society giving Bibles to judges - good idea, bad pamphlet

There was a bit of a flap from some secularists this week, when they heard that the Scottish Bible Society is sending Bibles to judges and other lawmen across Scotland.  The SBS explain:

Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as Honorary President of the Scottish Bible Society (SBS), presented inscribed Bibles to each of the Lord President Lord Hamilton and the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Gill to mark the start of a programme of distributing Bibles to the Scottish courts, and each of the judges expressed his gratitude in response.

Chief Executive of SBS Elaine Duncan explained that, following up an initiative suggested during her Society's recent bicentenary year, it was decided to ensure that judges in the Court of Session and each of the Sheriff Courts in Scotland had ready access to a copy of the Bible not only as a reference book which remains relevant to many aspects of substantive law, but also as the source of the principles of justice, integrity and mercy which underpin our court system in Scotland.

The National Secular Society described the initiative as 'beyond absurd'. President of the NSS, Terry Sanderson, helpful asked, "How would the Scottish seafood industry fare if the biblical ban on shellfish were to be enforced? Would Shetland’s knitwear industry flourish if there was a ban on garments made from two kinds of material, as required in the Bible?"

Naturally, this is quite some way from what the Scottish Bible Society had in mind, as Mr Sanderson well knows.

However, the initiative did strike Mouse a little odd when you look at the details.  Some great digging from Bartholomew's Notes and the Lallands Peat Worrier looks at a copy of the document which was went out with the Bibles (a rather amusing 'exclusive' from the Lallands Peat Worrier blog of a document which can be obtained free of charge on demand from the SBS).

Whilst the quotes above all sound like a sensible initiative to improve engagement with the Bible by pointing out the influence that it has historically had on the development of Scottish law, the pamphlet itself seems to claim that it is still an important reference document for Scottish law today.  The pamphlet states, "The case of HMN v BL 2008 HCJAC 10 Dec 2008 illustrates how relevant the Bible still is, even in areas of substantive law." The pamphlet also points to the Coronation Oath and the role that the Crown has in law.  Bartholomew and Lallands Peat Worrier demonstrate that this is pretty much rubbish.

It's a shame really that a sensible initiative has been tainted by some of the wording on the leaflet, but that's the way it goes these days.

Please consider donating

Being friendly to people we disagree with & General Synod elections

Mouse wanted to blog about this a little while ago, but its taken longer than I had hoped. Regular reader of this blog and atheist, Gurdur, has been attempting to spread some love across various divides in what he calls an 'inter-blog-fest'.

My idea is simply an inter-blog-fest for a week or two, where bloggers just make a blog post or two as a positive contribution to some other warring camp without stuffing up their own principles but recognising our common humanity and personhood. Since I am an atheist, that means a lot of warring camps for me to reach out to. I do not mean (de-)conversionary efforts, just positive things for the other warring sides where possible.

Now Mouse has spent much of the past week feeling like he is in the middle of a war.  First of all, he criticised the strange decision of Richmond Council to allow Protest the Pope to meet in one of their buildings.  This prompted the Executive Director of the National Secular Society to quote Mouse as the opening to his speech at the meeting.  The Guardian picked up on the story, and asked Mouse to write something for them.  It appeared in the main 'Comment is Free' section, when previously Mouse had only appeared in the 'Belief' sub-section, and generated over 350 comments, many of which were pretty nasty (at least until the Guardian removed the most offensive comments).  A couple of days later, the Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association put a response up at the Guardian, describing the Mouse as 'mysterious'.

So Mouse feels a bit in the thick of it.  And that certainly wasn't what Mouse intended with this blog.  In fact, his intention was to try to prod and poke the Church into engaging with the rest of the world better. Now the Guardian's comment section is not a typical place to have a rational debate on religion, and the National Secular Society and British Humanist Association are well set in their views.  So Mouse hopes he has not positioned himself as a staunch defender of religion and the religious, when actually he is pretty critical of the church and the way we conduct ourselves much of the time.

So, on to the inter-blog-fest.

First up, the idea appealed to Mouse, and reminded him of a post he put up a while ago, picking up a meme from elsewhere and challenging readers to cite three individuals you profoundly disagree with but still deeply respect.

More recently, Mouse encouraged some inter-religious love in the dispute over the 'ground zero mosque', by encouraging Christians to embrace the idea of a new Muslim community centre.

So what further to add?  Well, Mouse doesn't need to look to far to find some warring factions.  Within his own church there are disagreements which have become so deep that they appear irreconcilable.

Mouse will not patronise anyone involved by attempting to resolve all the issues in a couple of glib sentences, but will make a specific comment about one small issue.  General Synod elections are close.  There is still time (Mouse thinks) to get yourself nominated if you would like, and Mouse has noted many of the groups who are most central in the current disputes are encouraging 'their' people to stand.

Mouse will simply ask two things. 

1. If you are considering standing for General Synod, please do not do so if your intention is solely to represent your own interest group on a single issue - seek to represent the whole church out of love.  Even if this does result in the same answer on those issues, the difference in mind-set is immense;

2. If you are in a position to elect General Synod members, please do not do so purely on the basis of their stance on a single issue - select people Mouse describes above.

Both of these may seem patronising in their own right - after all what else would you do - yet Mouse still felt that it needed to be said.

Please consider donating

Sunday reflection

With kind permission from Devotions ChopChop.

Christ Plus Nothing

The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the unfaithful are trapped by evil desires. Proverbs 11:6

What motivates you to live a Godly life in Christ Jesus? Is it “fire insurance?” Is it because of what Christ has done for us? Do you find yourself feeling inadequate and unequipped to do “great things for God?” Do you ever feel like you “should” be doing something more for the Kingdom?

We have all experienced those times in our lives when our motivations for serving Christ were not the purest in the world. Perhaps we’ve been envious of those who are seemingly making great strides for the Kingdom.

As I stated yesterday, our righteousness comes from Christ, and never from anything we do on our own merit. If it were Christ Plus something else, then his death on the Cross was meaningless.

We don’t do things for Christ because we must do them for our salvation, we do them because of the “work” He is doing in our lives.

Please consider donating

Church Mouse religious news quiz of the week

Another week, another quiz.  Seven questions for seven days.  This feature seems to be growing in popularity.  At the time of writing, last week's quiz has been played over 1,500 times.

If you have trouble with the quiz below, you can also do the quiz here.

Please consider donating

2010 Christian New Media Awards and Conference

Just a quick note on the annual Premier Media blog awards.  Nominations have been open for a while, so if you haven't nominated your favourite blog (or your own), make you way over to the website and fill in the form.  There are categories to cover various sorts of blogs, websites and uses of new media, so you're bound to find something to fit with your site, and there are actual prizes for the winners.

Mouse was a winner last year in the 'Best Newcomer' category.  Since Mouse doesn't qualify for that any more, he's not so confident of making it to the finals this time round.

This year there's also a new media conference being organised.  It looks like a pretty packed agenda, with some great speakers, so well worth attending.  Two of the speakers, Pete Phillips and Bex Lewis, have guest posted on this site so its clearly a route to the top (they didn't ask Mouse to speak though).  Also speaking are blogging bishop Alan Wilson, Maggi Dawn and Andrew Graystone of the Church Media Network (who got annoyed when I said his conference wasn't very 'New Media').

Looking at the agenda, Mouse reckons you'd get most out of it if you are either looking to get into blogging / new media and would value some advice, or if you are looking to see how new media could be used to support your ministry.

Please consider donating

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week.

1. Bishop Nick Baines on being neighbourly

2. Greenbelt blog (which has been in overdrive this week) on how to take part online

3. Drayton Parslow has some novel reasons for wanting to protest against the Pope

4. Damian Thompson on the low points of the Papal visit schedule

5. FaithWorld on the 'Ground Zero Mosque'

6. Heresy Corner wonders why anyone would believe in crop circles

7. Clayboy wonders whether the Feast of the Assumption is a bit embarrassing

8. Maggi Dawn on why she blogs

9. Tall Skinny Kiwi with the best of Freakstock

10. Gurdur has an outreach blog-fest project (and Rev'd Lesley takes up the challenge)

Please consider donating

Exclusive: Faith School Menace? by Rev'd Janina Ainsworth, CofE Chief Education Officer

Richard Dawkins latest documentary, "Faith School Menace?" aired on Wednesday night on More4, drawing wider attention to the secularist argument that faith schools should be abolished.  Rev'd Janina Ainsworth, the Church of England's Chief Education Officer, featured in the program, putting a positive case for faith schools.  Writing exclusively for The Church Mouse, Janina reflects on the arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins in the program.

----------------------------------------

You don’t agree to take part in a documentary by Richard Dawkins about faith schools and expect to be able to convince him that they are a valuable part of our maintained education system! But I have to say that in the hour-long interview I took part in earlier this summer I was pleasantly surprised at how carefully Professor Dawkins listened to my points and sought to engage with me on the reality of what CofE schools are about. He was genuinely taken aback to be filming in a Church of England ‘faith’ school where 85% of the pupils are Bengali Muslim. That clearly didn’t fit the picture he was trying to establish of exclusive admissions policies and indoctrinatory RE.

It was more than a little disappointing that, in the final edit, last night’s documentary managed to present a thinly-argued case as a matter of common sense. The programme was more interested in scaremongering than in what actually happens. Today’s reviews in the newspapers, sadly, seem to have bought the story, too.

I’m grateful to Church Mouse for the chance to hopefully correct some of the distorted assertions, and to fill in some more of the details I discussed with Professor Dawkins:
* 7% of the population attend a place of worship but one third of schools are faith schools? That’s ignoring the 71% of people who self identified as Christian in the last census, which casts a rather different light on the relative proportion of church schools, and may explain something of their popularity.
* Church schools all admit pupils on the basis of faith? That’s ignoring voluntary controlled church schools (55% of the CofE’s total) which admit solely on distance from school, or Church of England academies which do likewise (only a very small proportion have any faith based places at all, and if they do they are well under 10% of the total). Even voluntary aided schools, which can include faith-based criteria in their admissions, rarely fill all their places with applications from Christian families and the majority include local children, from other faith communities or none. Of course, we would like to be able to offer a place in a Church of England school to everyone that applies – but in places where this is impossible, giving priority to families which support the school’s faith designation seems an entirely reasonable approach, which helps to maintain and develop the valued ethos which has helped to make the school popular in the first place.
* RE in ‘faith schools’ is not inspected by Ofsted which means they will necessarily be geared towards indoctrination? Not true in Church of England schools: the rising popularity of A level RE, shown in today’s results, shows that pupils’ interest in religions and faith is not being stifled by being told there is only one answer. Today’s exam syllabuses demand a high level of critical thinking, and the success of pupils in church schools at A level and GCSE shows that’s a lesson they have learned well. Diocesan RE advisors make an invaluable contribution to local syllabuses of RE and often recommend that church schools use the local Agreed Syllabus.
* ‘Faith schools’ lead to segregated communities that end up throwing stones (and worse) at each other?

It is interesting that Dawkins couldn’t find evidence for that from the English situation. Our research into ‘faith schools’ and community cohesion last year showed that schools with a religious character take that duty very seriously and ensure their pupils have good opportunities to engage with different cultures and beliefs. And that is Ofsted’s verdict.

Most damning was Professor Dawkins’ dismissal of parents’ right to bring their children up in their own faith, and to seek an education that would help them in that task. He demonstrated how he wished to do exactly that with his own daughter but failed to see the irony. In a liberal democracy, taxpayers of all faiths and none should be able to see their taxes being used to provide high quality education in a context that reflects their own religious, moral or philosophical commitments (survey results suggest that the public agrees).

The documentary concluded with a touching sequence in which Professor Dawkins eloquently set out why he believes children should adopt an inquisitive, enquiring, ‘open’ mind. I agree with practically everything he envisions as a purpose for education – as, I think, would every headteacher in a CofE school, and every parent of children in CofE schools. It’s just a shame he couldn’t be as open as he wants other people to be to see that the stereotype he frowned over is just that: a cartoon of his own devising, bearing no relation to the exciting, mind blowing, life enhancing things happening to children in church schools all over the country every day.

Please consider donating

Tweeting an abbreviated Bible

A lot of people are tweeting the Bible.  Really.  In itself its not very creative, and Mouse wouldn't usually comment on it, however, the latest effort from Chris Juby is a bit more interesting.

Chris's attempt to tweet the Bible has a twist, in the he is seeking to post just one tweet summarising each chapter of the Bible.  That means each chapter will have its essence extracted and squeezed into just 140 characters.  Chris is no slouch when it comes to the Bible Mouse is looking forward to the results.

You can follow at @BibleSummary or on the website.

As an aside, it is also interesting how much media coverage this has got, being featured in the Guardian, Telegraph and Daily Mail as well as BBC Radio.

Please consider donating

The "Ground Zero mosque" - why its not a mosque (or at Ground Zero) and why we should support it

The controversy surrounding the 'Ground Zero Mosque' has been rumbling on for some time.  In case you've missed it, this is the proposal to build a 13 storey mosque and Islamic centre two blocks away from 'Ground Zero' the site of the Twin Towers which were destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

US politicians have been discussing it for some time, largely along the lines that it shouldn't go ahead.  Republicans in particular have been lining up to condemn it, on the basis that it is insulting to the families of those who died at the hands of Muslim terrorists to have a mosque near the site. 

Mouse could not disagree more.

One of the nastiest comments came recently from Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who hit the bottom of the barrel with the argument which guarantees that the debate is effectively over - the holocaust analogy.  He said, "Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington..."

There is absolutely no doubt that it is important to be sensitive to those who lost loved ones on 9/11.  But Mouse simply cannot see how this is an insult to them.  In fact, a move to support peace and mutual respect in the face of extremism is a wonderful tribute.

It doesn't help that the facts are getting very little show in this controversy.  The building being proposed it not really a mosque, although there will be a mosque in it.  It will also contain fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court), a 500-seat auditorium, a restaurant and a cooking school, exhibition space, a library, art studios, a 9/11 memorial and childcare facilities.  It will not have a minaret or spire of any kind - it will just be another NY building.  Nor is it actually at Ground Zero.  It is two blocks away.

Last week President Obama came out in favour of the mosque, saying, "‘Let me be clear: As a citizen and as President I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country.  That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community centre on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’

It was rather a brave decision for him personally to speak out, as he could easily simply have said nothing and let the controversy run its course.  Obama's point here is simply that every American has the same rights under the law, and should be able to build a place of worship on private property as long as it complies with relevant planning laws.

I hope more people will stand up against those who wish to paint all Muslims as friends of terrorism.

Please consider donating

Into the fray - Mouse in the Guardian's 'Comment is Free'

Mouse's piece on the use of Richmond Library for a Protest the Pope meeting was picked up by the Guardian, who asked for a similar piece on their website.  Its now up.  As one would expect from that readership, there are many who disagree with Mouse's view on that one.  Mouse was expecting a bit of a battering, but things seem to be relatively even after the first 50 or so comments!

Please consider donating

The counter productive, incoherent and dangerous campaign against the Pope

Mouse was struck by a few things this week in relation to the anti-Papal campaign being waged at the moment.  The first piece of news is the fact that Catholics with Attitude have called the police after they received threats online.  Catholics with Attitude came into the news recently, following the launch of anti-Papal T-Shirts by the Protest the Pope group, as they sell Catholic clothing which is pretty cool.  Mouse doesn't know what sort of moron threatens a clothing company because of their religious affiliations, but it is terribly worrying that this sort of anti-Catholic sentiment is emerging in a way that we haven't seen for a long time.  Britain has a long and unpleasant history of anti-Catholic sentiment, and it would be dreadful if this was stirred up again now.

The second thing was the way the first Protest the Pope meeting turned nasty.  One person who attended told Mouse that it was quite civilised until the Q&A session at the end, when it turned.  It was then that the idea of blocking the roads emerged, as reported in the Telegraph, an action that would be an act of illegal civil disobedience.

And what is all this for?  The key focus for the Protest the Pope group is firstly that the taxpayer should not pay for the visit.  Whilst the government has stated the cost of the visit to the taxpayer will only be around £12m, the National Secular Society insist that the actual cost to the taxpayer will be a laughable £100m.  The difference, they claim, comes in policing costs which are not included in the £12m.  Yet the government has already stated very clearly that policing costs will be met from existing budgets, meaning there will not be a single penny increase in cost for the taxpayer.

The protest against taxpayer funding now seems to focus on the cost of policing the events.  Mouse thinks this is pretty weak territory.  Firstly, are they seriously suggesting that the police should not attend?  Not only is the Pope entitled to the same protection as any other public figure whilst in the UK, there is the wider issue of public safety.  The government have stated that the cost of policing the Papal visit will come from existing budgets, which means that no taxes will have to rise to pay for this, so there is very little to protest about.

But it is also rather ironic that those who are complaining about the cost of policing the Papal visit, are also now threatening an illegal roadblock and a 'mass rally' amongst many other protest activities aimed to harass the Pope everywhere he goes.  If you want to cut the cost of policing the visit, this is not the way to go about it.

Protestors also want to make the point that they disagree with Catholic beliefs around contraception, equalities, abortion and education.  Great pains were made at the public meeting last week to say that the protestors were not anti-Catholic, just anti-Pope Benedict XVI.  However, its pretty clear that on all these issues, Pope Benedict has not changed Catholic dogma one jot.  To describe these views as 'inhumane', 'cruel' or 'misogynistic', as they were at the Protest the Pope meeting last week, is to condemn millions of Catholics worldwide, as well as people of other faiths who share these views.

Mouse has been struck that he has heard more from secularists about the Papal visit than he has from Catholics.  It is clear that they see this as their chance to grab a few headlines, and the increasingly inflammatory and confrontational approach will not only incur more cost to the taxpayer, but risks an increase in the kind of threats that Catholics with Attitude have received.

Please consider donating

Pakistan appeal

Mouse has been terribly moved by the disaster in Pakistan, so for a short while will include a link to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal at the bottom of his posts - just in case you wonder what that's about.

Please consider donating

Sunday reflection

With kind permission from Devotions ChopChop.

With a Vengeance

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3

While we all mean well, we sometimes find ourselves dodging the truth on occasion. We then ask ourselves, “did I just say what I thought I said?” We may even go to the person to confess your half truth. What tends to happen, though, is that you let the little fib or half truth go (promising yourself not to ever do it again), then another opportunity comes along to make up for it. You blow it again. Soon, though, the half truth leads to outright lies. The change in the beginning is often subtle and unnoticeable. But then it snowballs.

The world pushes and pushes and pushes, and sometimes we break under the strain.

Ground yourselves in the Word of God. Continue to memorize and internalize Scripture. Seek God’s truth with a vengeance.

Church Mouse religious news quiz of the week

The quiz seems to be taking off as a feature.  At the time of writing the system has registered 1,100 games on last week's quiz.  Here's this week's religious news quiz, with seven questions for seven days.

If you have any trouble with the quiz below you can play it here.  Mouse understands that some iPhone users have been having trouble with it - Mouse is working with the software provider to iron this out.

August (=July) Wikio religious blog rankings

Here's the top 250 or so UK blogs from the latest Wikio rankings which deal wholly or partially with religion.

Mouse is the biggest climber this month, no doubt helped by General Synod. Thinking Anglicans is up a few places probably for the same reason.  Anglican Mainstream has reappeared after having vanished entirely from Wikio some time ago.  Mouse does not approve, as it does not publish original content, so is not a blog.

One to watch is Bishop Nick Baines rising to 272 this month, but  An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy and Of course, I could be wrong... both drop out of this lists range after having featured last month.

With Cranmer and David Keen both retiring their blogs, the religious segment is getting thinner at the top end of the rankings.

Numbers in brackets show last month's rankings.

77. (48) Archbishop Cranmer (who seems to have stopped blogging)
106. (89) Heresy Corner
119. (171) The Church Mouse blog
154. (168)  Thinking Anglicans
192. (163) Bartholomew's Notes on Religion
198. (outside top 250) The Ugley Vicar
204. (224) John Smeaton, SPUC Director
217. (198) St. Aidan to Abbey Manor (now closed for business)

222. (228) The Hermeneutic of Continuity

234. (outside top 250) Anglican Mainstream (its not a blog!)

241. (196) Islam in Europe
252. (217) Clayboy
259. (236) Bishop Alan's Blog

Music to watch the Pope to

A couple of sample tracks have been made available online from the free CD which is to be given to people who attend the Papal mass.  They reinforce the low standard that has been set by the Papal merchandise store.

The first track is a chill-out track that sounds like it was entirely composed and performed on a single Casio Keyboard.  The second is sung by someone who doesn't quite have the required vocal range for the tune they are singing.  Surely they could have done better than this.

The other highlight on the CD, which has not yet been released, is a song from Britain's Got Talent finalist Liam McNally.  So that's something to look forward to.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week:

1. Christian Today Liveblog on Christians in Afghanistan and Somalia

2. Damian Thompson on why Apple is Catholic and PCs are Protestant

3. FaithWorld on the mini-Luthers in Wittenberg

4. Katherine Meyer on the line between religion and medicine

5. Heresy Corner on Pope music

6. BRIN visualises religious switching, sticking and leaving

7. Clayboy on dogs in heaven

8. Phil Groom could use a hand at the Chrisitan Book Shop Blog

9. Rev'd Lesley wonders why going to church means you have more children (something in the wafers?)

10. Tall Skinny Kiwi on the emerging church and their stupid, silly names

Council building to host anti-Pope protest meeting

Mouse is working hard to keep the rant levels down with this post, but his whiskers are bristling, so lets see what happens.

A little while ago, the Protest The Pope group (largely the National Secular Society) announced a 'public meeting' in Richmond this week.  The meeting is being held there, as one of the Pope's first public engagements in the UK will be a visit to St Mary's University College in the Borough of Richmond.

The protest website states the purpose of this meeting as follows:

The Protest the Pope campaign is supporting a coalition of local groups and people, based in south west London, who have organised a public meeting to express their disagreement with Pope Benedict’s opposition to women’s rights, gay equality, fertility treatment for childless couples, embryonic stem cell research and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV

The meeting is formally being hosted by the Richmond LGBT Forum.  There are four speakers advertised - David Pollock, President of the European Humanist Federation, Keith Porteous Wood, Chief Executive of the National Secular Society, Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, and Peter Tatchell, human rights campaigner.  Following this, there will be a Q&A where the Richmond LGBT Forum can decide what further action to take in protest at the Papal visit.

Now initially Mouse took no notice of this meeting.  These people have well documented views, and are entitled to have whatever 'public meetings' they want to repeat them.  At the time of writing, just 18 people have confirmed their attendance on the Facebook event page, so it really doesn't look like anything with will be worrying the Vatican.

But then Mouse noticed the location of the meeting - Richmond Library, The Old Town Hall.

A quick Google search shows that this is not the public lending library, but a reference library within the Old Town Hall, a Richmond Council building with a room available for public hire.

Now let Mouse just say right now that he backs the right of this group to hold their meetings and to express publicly whatever opinions they wish to.  But Mouse has a pretty serious question about whether Richmond Council has any business hosting it, even if it is part of a commercial room hire.

There are two main reasons for this concern.  Firstly there is the issue that this meeting is likely to be considered offensive by Catholics, Christians and other people of faith.  The second is a question of impartiality and equality.  Richmond Council's policies would not have allowed this room to be used for a religious purpose.  Yet allows it to be used for an anti-religious purpose.

Lets look at these issues in turn.

Peter Tatchell has described Pope Benedict XVI as "the ideological inheritor of Nazi homophobia" and stated his view of religion as "the world’s single greatest fount of obscurantism, prejudice, superstition and oppression."  Keith Porteous-Wood and Terry Sanderson are almost professional rent-a-quotes for the British media providing virtually daily attacks on people of faith.  Terry Sanderson is giving a talk on the reasons why he is opposing the Papal visit, so we can expect a long list of evils perpetrated by the Catholic Church (in his eyes).  It is almost certain, therefore, that the Pope, and the Catholic Church in general, will be accused of all sorts of evils, and followers of that faith will almost certainly be insulted as wicked, ignorant or deluded.

So its a fair assumption that Catholics, Christians and other people of faith will find some of the things which will be said on Thursday evening in Richmond to be offensive.  Mouse simply wonders why Richmond Council wish to be associated with this, by allowing their building to be used for this meeting.

So Mouse asked them, and discussed the issue with local Richmond MP, Zac Goldsmith.  It seems that there has been quite a fuss about this meeting.  Mouse has been told that following on from the information appearing on the Protest the Pope website, Council officials obtained legal advice and sought some assurances from the LGBT Forum as to the purpose of the meeting.

Mouse was told that the Council was given written assurances that the meeting "is solely to allow the local LGBT community the opportunity discuss the issues relating to the Papal visit and was not concerned with organising a public protest, nor was it “in any way intended to be any sort of attack on the rights of anyone to hold religious views, as a Roman Catholic or otherwise".  On the basis of this assurance, the meeting was allowed to go ahead on Council premises.

However, this somewhat contradicts the purpose of the meeting as advertised on the Protest The Pope website.

"Join us in opposing the Pope’s intolerant policies" ...

[the meeting is to]"to express their disagreement with Pope Benedict’s opposition to women’s rights, gay equality, fertility treatment for childless couples, embryonic stem cell research and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV" ...

"Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, will talk about the “Protest the Pope” Campaign and our 6 main reasons for which we are protesting against honouring Joseph Ratzinger with a State Visit." ...

"Members of the Forum will then be able to decide whether or not the Forum should take any further action on behalf of the local LGBT community and, with other local groups that are also planning to take part, it is being suggested that a “Richmond Coalition against the State Visit” may be an appropriate vehicle to take things forward."

I don't know how this could be read as anything else than firstly a protest in itself, and secondly as a means of organising further protests.

So this led Mouse to his second concern - is the council acting in an impartial way.  Mouse has been told by Richmond Council that they have a policy on the use of their facilities which prohibits their use for the promotion of information which is political, religious or sectarian in nature.  So, why would they allow this meeting, which would appear religious in nature, and quite possibly political as well?

The answer goes back to the assurances provided.  This is not a campaign meeting - oh no - it is merely to provide information to the local LGBT community and to allow them to have a discussion about that information.  The council really should have done some more checking about this.  If this is an impartial meeting to allow free discussion the range of voices and discussion topics are dreadfully loaded.  The only voices will come from four prominent anti-religious campaigners.

Mouse is utterly bemused that this meeting is being allowed to take place on council property.  The policy of the council would seem to prohibit a Catholic Group from organising a public meeting to support the Pope or welcome his visit, as this would fall foul of the 'religious' prohibition, yet this policy seems to allow this meeting to go ahead.

Just to add insult to injury, by the way, the Richmond LGBT Forum, who are the local group who are 'hosting' the meeting, are indirectly affiliated with the council, so they have managed to secure the room at a concessionary rate.  Not only will Richmond Council allow this meeting to go ahead, but they will give the organisers a discount as well.

Anyone speak French?

Wikio has a service which translates blogs into European languages.  Mouse has had a post translated into French.  The downside of this service is that unless you happen to be fluent in multiple languages, you have no way of knowing whether you post has been translated accurately or not.

So, are there any French speakers out there who can confirm this is not an elaborate joke?

Julia Roberts is 'a practicing Hindu'

Mouse really doesn't know what to make of this.  The interweb is a-flutter with the news that Julia Roberts has given an interview for Elle Magazine to promote her new film in which she declares herself a Hindu.  The new film, "Eat, Pray, Love" involve a three week filming shoot in India, during which time Ms Roberts says she became an adherent to the Hindu faith.  She says that she moved on from her Christian upbringing, and now goes to the temple to 'chant, pray and celebrate'.

The Times of India has done some more legwork on the story:

Swami Dharamdev of Hari Mandir, Pataudi, where `Eat, Pray and Love' was shot for three weeks in September-October last year, said it is good news if someone accepts Hinduism from the heart. During the film's shooting, he said, a makeshift temple had been constructed nearby where unit members would light lamps and burn incense sticks. "Julia too would pray there, run her hands over the lamp and her hair as we all do," he recalled. "She also got her three kids here. I tied the sacred red thread on their wrists and applied the tilak on their foreheads," he said.

Swami Dharamdev recalled the actress also requested him, through her private assistant, to pray for her mother who was ill. "Before she left I told her, `you may choose not to eat or love. But don't forget to pray. Make that a part of your life, not just acting in this film'. She smiled and nodded affirmatively," he said.

In a statement, Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism in the US, also said he and his fellow practitioners welcome Roberts into the fold.

Now you can call Mouse a dreadful old sceptic if you like, but this does appear a little superficial to him.

Hinduism is the most difficult faith to understand, as it is not built on a single authoritative set of beliefs or creeds. It involves many sacred texts and oral traditions, combined with a wide range of diverse traditional practices.  There is no process for 'converting' to Hinduism.  Naturally we have no way of knowing what Ms Roberts believes, and the extent to which she really understands the Hindu faith.  Mouse wishes her all the best in her search for enlightenment.

Church Mouse religious news quiz of the week

Here's this week's religious news quiz.  Seven questions for seven days.  If you have any trouble with the quiz below, you can play it here.

Sunday reflection

With kind permission from Devotions Chop Chop.


New Life

The lips of the righteous know what is fitting, but the mouth of the wicked only what is perverse. Proverbs 10:32

It’s been more than 25 years now, but I still recall the gutter mouth I had before I became a Christian. The second half to this verse fit me to a T. A foul mouth was just one area that was wicked and perverse. I thank God for the changed life He’s given me. Today, as you reflect on this verse, give your life to Him anew. Thank Him for His Goodness and Grace. Thank Him for what He’s brought you through. You can’t know for sure what your life would have looked life without Christ, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

More importantly, thank Him for the New Life you are seeking to live with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Scientology on Wikileaks

Wikileaks has come under fire recently for revealing information on the war in Afghanistan.  In general, however, Mouse thinks the existence of the website is a jolly good thing.  This week, Mouse's attention was drawn to some new material on Wikileaks relating to Scientology.

The most frightening of these is what reports to be a contract which must be signed before Scientologists are allowed to participate in 'religious services'.  Mouse has no insider knowledge of whether this document is genuine or not, but is under the assumption that it is, so is posting under that assumption.

Amongst other things, the contract waives all rights to sue or seek legal recourse against the Church of Scientology for any reason, in perpetuity.  Mouse is no legal expert, but is pretty sure that this could not stand up in a UK court.

The strangest clause states, "Neither the Church nor any other Scientology church of organization which espouses, presents, propagates or practices the Scientology religion makes any claim ... (ii) that the application of any Scientology or Dianetics technology or practice will have any particular effect on me or any other person".

This does seem to undermine the wider claims that Scientology makes.

Overall, Mouse found the document pretty scary, and just another reason (if another reason was needed) to steer well clear of Scientology.

Did Wilberforce really 'condone' slavery?

This almost unthinkable question is triggered by the new book by Stephen Tomkins on Wilberforce, which has uncovered new evidence about the system of 'apprenticeships' which were operated in Sierra Leone, under the supervision of Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect, which was a form of bonded labour equivalent to slavery in all but name.

As usual, Mouse has already detected some spin going on, and can't help feeling there is an agenda behind it.  First the spin.  Here's what Tomkins said about his findings:

William Wilberforce was complicit in slavery ... What are we to make of it all? No interpretation that involves Wilberforce being corrupt, or insincere in his abolitionism, can possibly hold water. Vast amounts of his private letters and even privater journals are publicly available, and they reveal a man of extraordinary integrity and an implacable and lifelong (if slightly sentimental) hatred of slavery.

And yet here's how the Guardian interpreted that:

William Wilberforce 'condoned slavery' ... His condoning of the practice and his collusion in keeping it quiet conspired to ensure that Sierra Leone's capital, Freetown, would be the last place in the British empire where Africans could still be legally bought and sold into forced labour.

So here's where Mouse reckons the differences are:

1. The Guardian report suggests that Wilberforce wanted the system in place (through the term 'condoned'), whilst Tomkins says it is clear Wilberforce hated slavery.  In fact the Guardian article states this later on, but the term 'condoned' in the headline does the damage, and gives an entirely different impression.
2. The Guardian suggest Wilberforce kept the practice quite, whilst Tomkins says nothing of the kind and in fact says that the practice was explicitly stated in the 1807 abolition act of Parliament - so it could hardly have been a secret
3. The Guardian state that Wilberforce had the first crown governor of Sierra Leone sacked for threatening to blow the whistle, whilst Tomkins states that the governor filed his reports with the foreign office (not just a threat) and had the system abolished before he was dismissed.

Mouse's take is that the whole thing is a non-story.  Tomkins theory is that Wilberforce had to compromise on the system of 'apprentices' in order to get the 1807 Abolition Act passed.  This is hardly news, and would be entirely consistent with the approach he took throughout his life-long struggle against slavery, where compromise was very often needed to achieve results in small steps.

Wilberforce was an astute politician, having spent his entire adult life in the House of Commons, most of it within the inner circle of the Prime Minister.  Of course he knew when he needed to compromise in the short term to achieve his objectives in the long term.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week.


1. Stephen Tomkins reckons William Wilberforce was complicit in slavery (Mouse will be returning to this later)

2. George Pitcher reckons Anne Rice has become an Anglican

3. FaithWorld on the polluted River Jordan

4. BRIN on trust in clergy (or lack of it)

5. Lesley Fellows on selection conferences for priests

6. The Benedictine Nuns of East Hendred on digital missionaries

7. One hand clapping on whether hate has corrupted the church

8. Riazat Butt has introduced a 'Religion Round Up' and Lanky Anglican has introduced a Monday Round Up - what a good idea

9. eChurch Christian blog highlights the crop circles that don't look anything like the image of Christ

10. Graham Tomlin, Sam Norton, Gadget Vicar, Vic the Vicar and Rowan Williams (via Riazat Butt) on the end of the first series of Rev

Roll up, roll up, get your Papal tat here

This week the Catholic Church have opened up a giant suit-case in preparation for the Papal visit to the UK next month, and shown us all the mixture of tat they are selling to commemorate the visit.

Mouse is not impressed.  He had expected special edition bibles, CDs of specially commissioned choral music and items of similar quality and relevance.  Whilst many of the items on sale would not be described as tat, too many are.  Mouse has no issues with rosaries and candles.  Mugs and plates are OK.  Flags, keyrings, fridge magnets are not quite right for the official Papal store.  The paper flags, bunting and worst of all the flashing candle (below), which is fast becoming infamous, are not fit for the Papal seal of approval.  What next?  Giant foam fingers?  Baseball caps with a chalice on top and a straw for the wearer to sup from?  Oh dear.

A short, but interesting, piece over at the Catholic Herald asks whether this trivialises the faith.  Mouse can't help concluding that it does.  Not the existence of merchandise per se, but the quality of this batch specifically.  The first commenter on the Catholic Herald comments thread is the Guardian's Andrew Brown saying earnestly that it doesn't - just as well considering he ran a competition in the Guardian to design a commemorative T-Shirt. Oops - seems its a different Andrew Brown. Apologies to both Andrew Browns for Mouse's error.

There is no doubt much more of this stuff to come.  You can't stop someone putting the name of the Pope on a T-Shirt and selling it on a street corner, and there are already unofficial merchandise stores opening up.  The Catholic Church should leave the £1 flags and 'Holy Cards' to these guys, and focus on things that are more fitting to the Church and the Pope.