Most of today was spent looking for something important. I did not find it. I did, however, manage to get a new one, very easily (contrary to what I had been led to expect).

I seem to enjoy the company of my fellow postgraduates; this pleases me - it would be very difficult to be a postgraduate and not get on well with one's fellow postgraduates, for that would be a very lonely existence.

Beethoven was a great genius. I would like to get a picture of him.

I am reading Belloc's _On Nothing And Kindred Subjects._ It is, of course, very good.

I have just finished chap. 3 of Macaulay. It is finely written, but partly falsified by Whiggery - indeed, Macaulay is the Whig par excellence of the nineteenth century. He also seems to be unaware or hardly aware of the fact that a shilling in 1685 is worth much more than a shilling in 1848. Or am I imagining that?

I am *still* reading Macaulay. I am going to Durham on Wednesday; I cannot bpack five volumes of Macaulay, so I wish I had more time to read in the next few days. I shall see how much reading I can do.

I am reading Macaulay, that epitome of Whiggery. Our official history, it cannot be sufficiently emphasized, IS bunk.

I have set my political views on Facebook to "Justice and Right," and my religious views to "Catholic Truth."

This has caused so much controversy it is incredible. It has been misinterpreted and misunderstood in the few hours since it was written. The point of the story is the righteousness of Lot.

GENGHIS. How did that fellow - what's his name?

HANNIBAL. Lot.

GENGHIS. Lot. How the hell did that fool Lot get on to the Borough Council?

HANNIBAL. I can't remember. He's been mixed up with politics since - well, since as long as I can remember.

GENGHIS. I suppose you're too young to remember Abraham's political life. Anyhow, Lot's gay rights voting record is appalling.

HANNIBAL (effeminately). Oh, I know, I know.

GENGHIS. I read an article in The Times this morning about him. There [giving HANNIBAL The Times] - can you read?

(HANNIBAL shakes head. Puts the newspaper on the table next him.)

GENGHIS. Well, it will be a good day for Sodom the day he leaves it, you mark my words. Just you mark my words. He's voted against gay couples adopting children, against gay marriage; I heard the other day he was in favour of criminalizing gay sex. He really has a problem with LGBT people. Do you know what I think?

HANNIBAL. No.

GENGHIS. I think he's a self-righteous hypocritical homophobic narrow-minded stupid pompous stuck-up right-wing naïve pretentious vile uncomprehending ignorant pious witless holier-than-thou neurotic obsessive Telegraph-reading fundamentalist deranged medieval psychopathic zealot with no experience of life.



(HANNIBAL nods in agreement.)



Enter FREDERICK.



FREDERICK. Oh, is that Lot you're talking about? Our family call him Snot.



(All three roll about laughing for thirty-five minutes.)



[FREDERICK.] But I don't think it's true that he's got no experience of life - he has some experience. Of...



GENGHIS. Of what? Being on the Council?! (Snorts.)

FREDERICK. Well, he has some experience of political life.

GENGHIS. Experience, yes, but I don't think he's learned anything from his experience. Remember the time when...damn! I've forgotten.

HANNIBAL. What do you mean?

GENGHIS. He still insists on his outdated views and wants to impose them on the rest of us. Out of touch! He's out of touch with the people of this country, and it will bring about his downfall. A dinosaur, straight out of the Cretaceous era.

HANNIBAL. Out of the what?

GENGHIS. The... oh, never mind.

FREDERICK. I think his presence in this city is a public scandal, and we'd be better off without him.

GENGHIS & HANNIBAL. Hear, hear!

GENGHIS. Yes, that's just what I was saying. Personally I think he just sets out to be controversial for the sake of it. I think he sets out to rile people.

HANNIBAL. I agree.

FREDERICK. I hope so, otherwise there must be something wrong with him. For anyone to hold the views he has with such...God damn it... (looking for the right word) CONVICTION... must have mental health problems in my opinion. I am serious.

GENGHIS. But, as I was saying to Hannibal here, Lot's voting record in the Council on gay rights is positively appalling. The sooner we are rid of that obnoxious, evil man, the better.

HANNIBAL & FREDERICK. Hear, hear!

GENGHIS. Oh, Hannibal, could you hand me the paper again?



(Hannibal hands Genghis The Times.)



[GENGHIS.] I wanted to look at the weather forecast. (Reading.) Tuesday: rain, very hot.



(22nd September, 2010.)


Needless to say, that provoked a reaction. And that is good.

I read the Redemptorist Rule (not the Constitutions) today. Some of it was interesting, some of it not. St Alphonsus specifically states that the Divine Office must be said without chant (for Redemptorists). I suppose because of their stress on poverty, and on mortification.

Today's University Challenge was very one-sided. I am still reading "Danton: A Study." It is quite heavy, because I am totally unfamiliar with the subject matter. I have transcribed some of St Alphonsus's "Theologia Moralis." That is a VERY IMPORTANT BOOK, and it should be known by every priest.

Good night.

Cardinal Newman has been beatified! Hooray!

Today I appeared on the Mercury theatre stage in a production similar to that of the 28th of November, 2004.

From the 28th of November, 2004, to the 18th of September, 2010: what great changes have happened in my life since then! What journeys! What watersheds!

By Stuart Abram: Respect vs Tolerance

In the last few weeks much thought and discussion has been given to the issue of "tolerance" and the place of religion in the public life of the nation. Various terms in the debate such as "tolerance" have themselves, rightly, inspired mini-debates. What perhaps has been less discussed is the place of religion in society as a whole. Professor Grayling, of Birkbeck College, University of London, a prominent secularist and party to a letter published in to-day's Guardian by he and his co-(ir)religionists appeared on the BBC commenting on the Pope's visit. He emphasised the fact that different religious (or irreligious) views were now more equally considered and he pointed to the irreligious thought of the ancients (without citing any particular names; implicitly I think he was referring to the Pre-Socratics (beloved of Nietzsche) and perhaps Epicurus, Aristotle (who was more agnostic than irreligious, although his thought is rightly associated with, and developed by, St. Thomas Aquinas with tremendous understanding) other acclaimed thinkers such as Plato and Marcus Aurelius have an unmistakably religious dimension, it is also worth mentioning that the Academy was itself a religious foundation). The great renewal of philosophical thought in the West, however, is associated with the acceptance of Christianity and represented in such figures as Augustine and Anselm.



Yet the question persists of how we as a society and nation, whose foundations are unmistakably Christian, are to engage with religious thought. As Baroness Warsi points out, we live in a world where more and more people belong to the major religions of the world than a century ago. Islam and Christianity are major forces in the world, largely for good. This, at least in the case of Christianity, provoked the atheist Matthew Parris to suggest that we dispatch (as once we did, and still do to some extent) missionaries to Africa instead of, or in addition to, mere material aid. We, as both individuals and a nation, have no choice in the matter, we must do God for both our own good and that of those people we desire to help. The figures, furnished in the speech of Baroness Warsi, prove that people do, indeed, do God more and more often. We are not an increasingly secular society, quite the reverse it seems. The speech can be found at http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservatives.com%2FNews%2FSpeeches%2F2010%2F09%2FSayeeda_Warsi_The_importance_of_faith_to_life_in_Britain.aspx&h=3070e .



Here, the question of language, considered in its broadest sense becomes crucial. We are accustomed to think in terms of "tolerance" and not of respect. An important distinction between the two lies in the respective implications they have for the place in society of what is being tolerated or respected. The former implies that something alien to the mores of society, a foreign body or even a parasite, is allowed to exist in an act of concession. We tolerate screaming children on public transport or particularly annoying colleagues at work. We do not really want to have much to do with them unless we have to, and even then we do it grudgingly. Despite the relative poverty of this word, it is, alas, a buzzword. In its name, Christian registrars have been sacked, adoption agencies threatened with closure, dangerous cross-wearing air stewards disciplined and street-preachers who might have disagreed with a liberal stance on homosexuality have been prosecuted. The innate moral superiority which itself grants "tolerance" is always capable (and often willing) to show those tolerated (often described themselves as "intolerant") who is really boss. The long-term message can only be, conform.



The inspiration for such a position is largely one of power. Implicit within Professor Grayling's rejoicing that Christianity has (or seems to have) been knocked of its cultural pedastal is that his movement is now more powerful. It can militate, in a deeply intolerant and hypocritical way, for its own religious agenda. Out with faith schools. Boo and hiss to church/religious community projects. Boo! Hiss! Religion is intolerant and stupid! Boo!!! Hiss!!!!



The rather obvious aim and solution to this rather unsatisfactory situation is true respect. This is not, thankfully, a souped-up version of tolerance (God forbid) but an approach eliciting of all this nation's citizens an understanding and brotherhood which enables dialogue, common endeavour and (dare I say it) personal spiritual reflection. Furthermore, respect does not merely tolerate but recognises the implicit right of religious communities to observe, practice and preach their religion as equal citizens. These rights are enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights (Article 9). The grudging concessions granted recently in the Equality Act enabling faith communities to employ people who agree with and practice their doctrines do not show respect but condescension and illiberal "tolerance". The bizarre policies and acts of some companies and public bodies likewise seem inspired by an intolerance (in the name of tolerance, of course) that can only serve to inflame resentment and misunderstanding. This does not make for a balanced and peaceful society and defies the spirit and word of the ECHR as originally conceived where exceptions to this freedom are greatly restricted, especially given the importance of intellectual freedom and moral discourse (threatened by some who wish to apply hate laws to merely disapproving of homosexual intercourse). This is utterly inimical to the traditional and hard-won liberties of this land.



If, in matters of law, the English common law has proved to be a very capable if not perfect guardian of civil liberties, it is because it is rooted in the history and thought of the people it serves. In matters of religious discourse, the large-scale loss of even basic religious knowledge has created a wide-gulf between those who practise almost any religion and those who, largely perhaps out of ignorance, can conceive of no spiritual force in their lives other than various forms of emotion (however elevated) or a vague belief in the paranormal (it is interesting to note that belief in the occult has grown threefold [from five to fifteen per cent] in the last fifty or sixty years). In this age, the treasures of Christianity, which radiate a rich spiritual beauty coupled with a deeply intellectual and coherent theological belief, can only prove to be a shallow aesthetic experience at best. Heart needs head.



The disintegration of much of English and Western European culture, and especially the appreciation of that of the past, is largely a result of this widespread philistinism. I was once shocked to hear in the corridors of the School of Modern Languages and Cultures complaints about the expectation that students should have a basic understanding of the Bible. Likewise, in Dante Studies, a voluntary course, there was exasperation at the thought of the necessity of some coherent basic theological knowledge. These students, most of whom will gain 2:1s or better, are incapable of understanding Western culture, and thus also Western history, in any real depth. One can only but conjecture what implication this has for Europeans' understanding of American society and culture. In large part, Europe is ignorant of her past nobility and richness due to her abandonment of Christian knowledge and faith.



To engage with any other culture requires and brings a similar engagement with one's own. Daniel Hannan discusses the otherwise surprising fact that Eurosceptics tend to be better linguists than Europhiles (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/3679101/Eurosceptics_make_dazzling_linguists/). Likewise, any engagement with religious thought (and this will be necessary in a world and society where it is an increasingly important presence) requires a similar engagement with one's own. A boy who knows no or little English history will find French history even more alienating and foreign than it would otherwise be. For Europeans, the historic faith and backbone of the continent is Christianity; most comprehensively and effectively in Catholicism. In the current environment, the widespread ignorance in religious matters is coupled with a spiritual and cultural malaise, where, for example in art, form becomes art itself, in the implicit confession that there is no substance in contemporary thought. Faith, properly understood, is a deeply human thing (I am not denying its supernatural and transcendent elements) that, in the experience of both ancients and moderns, is capable of expanding the ambit of the soul and knowledge. It is perhaps surprising that out of all the contenders for intellectual dominance in the last three centuries, only Christianity remains fresh and fully-human, if sometimes very much ignored. Marxism has yielded Stalian and the Soviet Union. Eugenics helped give birth to Nazism, mass-murder and enforced sterilisation. Only the orthodox Christianity represented in the Pope resisted both of these monstrous forces; Pope John Paul II being credited with helping to bring down the Soviet oppression and Pius XII (and numerous others) providing both resistance to the Nazis and aid to the Jews.



To conclude, respect is borne of humanity and self-understanding. A practising Christian and a practising Muslim will often find a certain rapport and respect. The fruitful interreligious dialogue of recent decades is evidence for this. Pope Benedict himself has expended much effort on this, with both Jews and Muslims, as well as other Christians, seeing it as vital for the future peace of the world. On the other hand, the brand of aggressive atheism preached by Dawkins et al. has already proved itself to be a denier of ancient civil liberties and true respect. Bent on alienating an historically Christian society from its rich past to impose its own unprovable, negative (in the technical and pejorative senses) and arguably inhuman dogma, it is a malign religious force whose intolerance and venom risks being highly productive of an alienation from much of mankind in the universal human search within and without. It is time to call time on its cant.

I am reading Belloc's study of Danton at the moment. Belloc is one of my heroes. Danton was one of Belloc's. I think there are certain characteristics common to both men.

I should write earlier in the day, then I would not be so tired, and perhaps would say more.

I have had a very tumultuous time lately.

I am feeling all right at the moment.

Please pray.

Today is a First Friday, and so I have endeavoured to spend the day more in the presence of God than perhaps I would normally. I have not been on Facebook, nor checked my emails, nor have I had my phone on. I am sure I have received abundant graces today: graces are often painful - I hope I am not complaining - but they should be welcome nonetheless. I am afraid there is no way to become a Saint but the way of suffering. The easiest way is (pacè Durham InterCollegiate Christian Union) the way of Mary. She does not indeed take away our crosses, but she helps us bear them.
Talking of Mary, I should remind you that the 8th of September is the Feast of Her Nativity. Today is the fifth day (it seems later to me) of the Novena in preparation for that Feast. I hope I shall have something useful to say in my blog on that feast day.
It seems to me that the lack of reverence shown by, for example, certain Christian Unions, to our Lady, does not make a lot of sense. But I do not intend to expound upon that now.

Today is the Feast of St Gregory (and in this country it actually is a Feast now, and not a mere Memoria). I am glad that St Gregory - a Doctor of the Universal Church! - has been (in England) given a somewhat higher rank than "Memoria."

In addition, I have discovered that the Saint venerated in this diocese on the 1st of September is St Sebbi. He was a King of the East Saxons, the husband of St Osyth; this was in the seventh century. He abdicated, and became a monk: a thing I think the modern world would regard with bemused incomprehension.

Another thought of mine relates to Stephen Hawking. The other day I said that I thought he had posited an effect without a prior cause, which is absurd. Upon reflection, he might have meant that "laws pre-existing in nothingness" were the first cause, which certainly seems to make more sense. But it implies that laws can create something out of nothing, and creation implies a will. Laws of themselves cannot do anything. Indeed it seems to me that the very notion of law requires a will: for a law can only exist in reference to the will of the lawgiver. But if the laws are the first cause, then they would be their own lawgiver, and then what? This does not make sense. This makes law and will the same thing. Or it implies that the laws are not given: that they are of themselves, and also (to follow the logical sequence) eternal (since they are outside time). There is no reason why a law cannot be eternal, but a law has to be given, otherwise it is not a law at all.

There is no contradiction here: a law can certainly be eternal. But there is one necessary conrequisite (I have deliberately refrained from the word "prerequisite"): that the Lawgiver be eternal.

But the Lawgiver must cause the Law, so the Law cannot be the First Cause.

"If God gives you an abundant harvest of trials, it is a sign of great holiness which He desires you to attain. Do you want to become a great saint? Ask God to send you many sufferings. The flame of Divine Love never rises higher than when fed with the wood of the Cross, which the infinite charity of the Savior used to... finish His sacrifice. All the pleasures of the world are nothing compared with the sweetness found in the gall and vinegar offered to Jesus Christ. That is, hard and painful things endured for Jesus Christ and with Jesus Christ." - Saint Ignatius of Loyola