Papal Blair
Once long ago, Tony Blair wooed the Labour Party.
‘I forsake all other politics, you are the very one for me’ he trilled, fluttering his bambi eyelashes.
He spent the next three decades, like many a wife before him, nagging and sulking until he had fashioned them into a new image – ‘the third way’ – before he got bored and left them broke and disillusioned to the suffocating embrace of Gordon Brown. They still haven’t recovered.
His intense flirtation with the Vatican has followed a similar path. First the avowed commitment, then the demand for ‘a third way’ – this time it was ‘child abuse, still no wives, but you should allow homosexuality’. He cannot let his lovers be.
He voted to retain the 24 week limit on abortions, and championed civil partnerships before he pledged his troth to the Holy See. He has yet to repudiate either view.
His grandiose ‘Tony Blair Faith Foundation’ stands accused by Belgium’s Father Michael Schooyans of having the aim of ‘remaking the major religions’ to impose ‘a politically correct interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures’ to further his ‘messianic’ belief in Human Rights legislation.
“The fresh “convert” does not hesitate to explain to the pope not only what he must do, but also what he must believe! Is he Catholic? Blair does not believe in the authority of the Pope.”
“Is he Catholic?” – how often was the cry “Is he Labour” heard?
Next week, the Pope will arrive in a Britain of bitterly opposing religious beliefs, occasioned in part by Tony Blair’s social engineering and open borders policy.
It promises to be a lively visit as the Pope travels around, accompanied by the same Tony Blair who cancelled his recent book signing visits under a hail of shoes and insults for fear of ‘inconveniencing’ the faithful, but who is unlikely to give up his place in the Papal procession. The devoutly Catholic Cherie would never forgive him.
The antipathy towards the Pope’s visit is visibly mounting in the media.
The gay lobby was up and running long ago – Peter Tatchell’s bitter documentary is due to be aired on Monday, blaming the Pope for incidents of sexual abuse that occurred long before he even became a Bishop, and linking him to the ‘Holocaust denial’ views of one suspended bishop.
The modern witch-hunters of paedophilia will be screaming loud and clear; the Pope is head of an organisation that has long put its adherence to canonical law before any belief in the secular judicial system. It is hard to believe sometimes that paedophilia occurs in every country, every religion, and every organisation – to read on the Internet you would think it was the exclusive preserve of Catholic priests and Senior British Governmental figures. Would that it were.
On Wednesday night, the fearsome Geoffrey Robertson, doyen of Human Rights lawyers, was demanding to know why the United Nations ‘allowed’ the Vatican to be an independent sovereign state. You can but try to imagine the outrage if a speaker in the Vatican was to question the right of the United Kingdom to be an independent sovereign state!
Catholics would be well advised to don flak jackets along with their mantillas. They are set to become next week’s candidates for re-education of their misguided beliefs, firmly in the gun sights of the ‘truly righteous’ – the secularists.
Still, the smokers, drinkers, and junk food guzzlers amongst us should get a bit of peace.
-
1
September 12, 2010 at 17:39 -
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Thomas Jefferson-Letter to H. Spafford, 1814.
Thomas was a very wise man
-
3
September 12, 2010 at 18:25 -
“‘[T]ruly righteous’ – the secularists”.
‘Nuff said. -
5
September 12, 2010 at 18:31 -
Tony Blair is a consummate politician, which is not a sign of virtue. And his Faith Foundation is a lot of hot air. But if he rejects the authority of the Pope, he is getting something right, even if that makes him not a proper Catholic. The idea that someone can be authoritative, in the sense that their experience or expertise makes it wise to consider their views seriously, is perfectly sensible. But the idea that any individual can be an authority figure, in the sense that one is under some kind of obligation to accept their pronouncements, is nonsense. The Pope has his views, and he has some arguments to support those views (although as it happens I disagree with many of his views). But he isn’t anyone special. He’s just a regular guy, and I can’t see why any sensible person should treat him differently from the way one would treat the person one sits next to on the bus.
-
6
September 12, 2010 at 20:00 -
Why go to the bother of becoming a Catholic if you then turn around and start telling Catholicism to change?
He would be better off starting his own religion.
Blair is nothing if he is not in some form of club, and somewhere near the top naturally. Statesman, leader, Labour, Catholicism, The Quartet, etc. He cannot plough his own furrow and instead leaps from ditch to ditch trampling along other people’s footsteps so that his are the most recent impressions.
-
-
7
September 12, 2010 at 18:42 -
Hang on1 as a Catholic, a drinker and and an occasional smoker – does this mean I get in in the neck all ways round!!??
Certainly feels that way!
Gildas the Monk -
9
September 12, 2010 at 19:27 -
My dearly beloved secular parrots and Tatchel buglers.
We catholics have had to put up with all sorts of creepy crawlies coming out of the woodwork this past 2000 years,Pharissees,Romans,Goths,
Huns,Moors,Orthodox,Saracens,Templars,Reformation,Enlightnment
Napoleon,Marxists,Nazis, and recently the BBC chorus from the
cesspool of modernity. Strange how the ringleaders of anti religious
bigotry go very quiet when Islamic leaders come calling.
Critics without blemish,you may cast the first stones,the rest,schhhh.-
10
September 12, 2010 at 20:11 -
“Strange how the ringleaders of anti religious
bigotry go very quiet when Islamic leaders come calling”Really? So all those voices condemning, and campaigning against, the stoning to death of women in Iran were just all in my head? I think you’ll find there are plenty of “anti-religious bigots” who’ll happily speak out against the evils carried out by any religion. It tends more to be our state masters, and a few PC lefties, who squeal when it comes to being nice to Islam.
-
11
September 15, 2010 at 21:44 -
Heretic
-
-
12
September 12, 2010 at 19:33 -
Is The Tony Blair Faith Foundation real then? I thought that picture was Photo Shopped.
What the hell is he wearing then? It looks like a cross between a Dog Collar and Mao Tse Toung.
-
13
September 12, 2010 at 19:56 -
Blair’s conversion? He never converted. He was received into the church (for reasons which I really hope the Archbishop is able to explain in the valley of Jehosephat), but he never converted.
-
14
September 12, 2010 at 23:45 -
Well, there’s a pretty distinction to play with! How to be a Catholic without being Catholic… As one who was born into the Holy Mother Church and mentally left it at the age of 8, that notion of being received almost suggests he was already actually a Roman therefore had no need to convert. How very strange.
And equally strange is that his refutation of Papal infallibility hasn’t raised murmurs about excommunication (as it has for many others). I wonder how much of the filthy lucre he renders up to Rome.
-
15
September 13, 2010 at 11:52 -
au contraire: he wasn’t a Catholic, and he ain’t one now. (Unless for some deep reason he’s only pretending to profess all manner of things contrary to the teaching of wur holy mother church, in which case at the Last Judgement it’ll not be, re Mr Bliar, the archbish answering for scandal, but me for my lack of charity)
-
-
-
16
September 12, 2010 at 19:59 -
Fidelus Defendum,
//Strange how the ringleaders of anti religious bigotry go very quiet when Islamic leaders come calling.//
Strange how quickly the Pope goes grovelling to Muslims begging for forgiveness when he says something that offends them, and yet does not do the same for any other people that he offends.
-
17
September 12, 2010 at 20:13 -
Papal Blair? Paypal Blair more like. Infallible* and expensive.
* He is never wrong. He may sometimes admit to being wrong with hindsight but that means he believes he was right at the time in question and is still right in the present despite a change of opinion.
-
18
September 12, 2010 at 21:04 -
Oremus
-
19
September 13, 2010 at 13:55 -
Great article Anna.
Indigomyth
The Pope has a responsibility for peoples lives. If he says or does certain things people could die.On the subject of Papal infalibility I think it has the practical purpose of attempting to keep the church united.
-
20
September 13, 2010 at 20:38 -
FD, so by your litany of “enemies” I assume you are still supporting the schism between Orthodox and Catholic Christians perpertrated by the Vatican between 870 ad ( approx ) and the beginning of the 13th century. Before the Patriarchate of Rome decided to go it’s own way, there was harmony, perhaps if you study what happened in 1204 at Constantinople you may begin to understand why the Orthodox Patriarchates are so distrustful of the Bishop of Rome and his supposed ” Spiritual Authority “
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }