Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix - an agent of truth and peace

Mother Agnès-Mariam de la Croix, spokesperson for the Catholic Media Centre of the Diocese of Homs, Hama and Yabroud in Syria, is one of the main representatives of the 'Mussalaha' Reconciliation inter-faith Initiative, which has the support of all Syria’s religious communities. She has been a fearless and indefatigable proponent for Syria’s persecuted.

His Grace wrote about her a few months ago: she is the nun who exposed the egregious stage-management of public opinion when President Obama, David Cameron and François Hollande were trying to justify punitive action against President Assad and his forces for the alleged use of chemical weapons. More recently, she personally brokered a ceasefire between 'rebels' and Syrian troops in Moadamiya, and thereby helped save the lives of over 2000 civilians.

Mother Agnès-Mariam has been and is being relentlessly criticised for these acts by those who are support war and oppose peace. She is still besieged by lies, libels and slanders which foment further conflict and hinder peace and reconciliation in Syria.

And no wonder the Father of Lies is irked.

Mother Agnès-Mariam demolished the credibility of the videos of the Ghouta chemical gas story. Her evidence on the veracity of the rebels’ videos was used by the Russian government in its successful efforts to forestall the USA’s planned missile strikes on Damascus. The questions Mother Agnès-Mariam raised in that interview have still not been satisfactorily answered.

How many nuns brave snipers and bombs to broker a ceasefire?

    "Saturday, October 12 At 11 am Mother Agnes-Mariam and Sister Carmel went to Muadamiyet-al-Cham, on the outskirts of Damascus.. Twelve snipers were ensconced above the arcades that lead into the city. Mother Agnes-Mariam swept up a white flag and headed with determination, along with Sister Carmel, toward a group of about 40 leaders of the armed rebel bands that have been kidnapping thousands of ordinary people. Now these armed bands were also threatening.. to block off all food supplies. The ensuing confusion was indescribable, with shots being fired and shouts ringing out about how no one was to leave the place alive.

   "So Mother Agnes-Mariam tells Sister Carmel to pray and they begin to invoke the name of Jesus. Suddenly there is silence, and there is an opening for negotiations over the liberation of the hostages..."

There are accompanying photographs for this diary account: the BBC also recorded the peace-brokering (and there's a longer BBC Today interview, or a much fuller video link here).

Syria is a dangerous war zone: journalists who go there run the risk of death. Mother Agnès-Mariam is not 'pro-Assad', as some of them claim, but it's a handy slur to hurl at anyone who opposes the rebels’ excesses. She does not work for Assad and neither is she in cahoots with him: she simply labours for peace and reconciliation in Syria's killing fields. Allegations that she "meets daily with Ali Mamlouk, the head of Syria’s National Security Bureau, and Jamil Hasan, the head of Air Force Intelligence" are patently absurd. It is simply part of a conspiracy to discredit her, or even provoke her assassination.

And she is mocked as “Our Lady of Useful Idiocy”. Funny, isn't it, how the sympathies of some Western journalists appear to be with those who are wantonly slaughtering Christians and committing unspeakable war crimes. But the media bias is routinely with these 'rebels': the BBC gave a very easy interview to Abu Sakkar, Syria’s notorious heart-eating cannibal (yes, you read that right). Why is taxpayers' money giving a platform to such a monster?

Vladimir Putin made this very point to David Cameron at the 2013 G8 summit meeting on the day Prince George of Cambridge was born. Channel 4 enthused about their exclusive with an AK47-toting female jihadist from London who is helping to colonise Northern Syria under the flag of al-Nusra. This woman had looted and stolen, but her crimes went unchallenged during the interview.

And The Guardian deals reverently with Ali Almanasfi, who was killed in Syria fighting for al-Qaeda. Here, from Harding’s article, is some of this dead jihadist’s previous:

As a teenager, according to his friend Tam Hussein, Almanasfi drifted into trouble. He got involved in street fights with other Acton gangs and petty crime: drugs, stealing, booze. In 2008 his father sent him to Syria to cool down. Apparently this didn't work. A year later he did something he would bitterly regret: drunk, he attacked an older man. The details are hazy. But he was caught, sentenced to four or five years in jail, and initially imprisoned in Feltham young offenders institute.

Mary Fitzgerald, a foreign affairs editor with the Irish Times, spent time with jihadists in Libya and then followed the same group of fanatics to Syria. She praises them, martyr-like, despite their own criminal backgrounds in Ireland. In between praising the foreign jihadists currently laying waste to Syria, Ms Fitzgerald has made unsubstantiated allegations against Mother Agnès-Mariam via Twitter.

In one instance, on learning that BNP leader Nick Griffin was in Syria as part of an EU delegation, she insinuated that Mother Agnès-Mariam invited him - despite the nun being in Australia at the time and having never heard of Griffin or the BNP. Apparently, the beheading of Christians is a baseless claim: the nun is just a religious nutter. Mary Fitzgerald is of the view that Irish jihadists are not extremists of the al-Qaeda mold: they are true martyrs for a just cause. Unsurprisingly, she is a vocal supporter of the Irish-based Muslim Brotherhood extremists who were arrested in Cairo when the Morsi regime was toppled.

There is a lesson here: if you're a servant of the Lord intent on working for peace and reconciliation in a war zone, you can expect the forces of hell to be unleashed to smear, defame and kill your reputation, if not your life.

God bless you, Mother Agnès-Mariam. May the Lord guide and protect you, and give you peace.

The Francis Effect

When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. (Mt 8:1-4)

We don't do this very much. Not because we fear the scorn of Richard Dawkins that the sick are not healed, but because we lack compassion and kindness.

We judge by appearances. O, we can watch John Hurt slobber about as the Elephant Man and shed a sympathetic tear, but we wouldn't invite him to dinner. Well, we might now, but only because he's become a celebrity and there's cachet in the association.  

Visiting St Peter's Square, most of us would shun this poor wretch because of his Elephant Man-like appearance. We would certainly decline to share a communion chalice with him, for fear of some unknown contagion. But, like his namesake St Francis of Assisi, this Pope abjures his royal palace, lives in a guest house with his brothers, and prays deeply – quite movingly – for a modern-day leper. Indeed, the Pope kissed the carbuncles upon this poor man's deformed forehead.

Humility and holiness in action.

It is Christ-like.

Some will say it is prophetic – a sign of profound faith in a superficial world of beautiful people and bright young things. But it is simply what we all ought to be doing – manifesting the self-emptying love of Christ and transcending the narrow confines of the world.

Love does not solve life's problems: it helps us to cope with them. It brings perspective and confers order. Faith working through love is creative and redemptive. Pope Francis acts for that poor distorted being because he has an appreciation of that being. Such love is the fruit of God's presence within us.

The statutory obligation to report suspected child abuse

From Brother Ivo:

Apologists for 'The Perfect State' have just taken a step forward with the proposal that it should be a criminal offence for care professionals not to report child abuse to the authorities.

Let nobody misunderstand. Brother Ivo hates child abuse with a passion, and if he thought for a moment that such a proposal would have a protective outcome, he would give Keir Starmer's suggestion serious consideration. But he doesn't find the advancement of state power or the 'price worth paying' argument remotely attractive. When a very great and lasting evil is to be combated, Brother Ivo would go a long way in setting aside his hesitations if it would save the little ones that Christ loves especially.

The question is, would it actually assist?

It is a little unclear as to the extent to which the obligation extends. Initially the proposal is framed in terms of 'care professionals', but as one hears talk of 'all in loco parentis' the ambit grows until it surely threatens to encompass everyone engaged in child-related activities though the holding of a 'Disclosing and Barring' (formerly CRB) certificate. It seems that all those who volunteer for Cubs or to become lay readers or teaching assistants would be acquiring serious obligations in areas of expertise where they may have neither experience nor expertise.

Extending a positive duty so that more citizens have to to report any suspicion of criminal offence takes us closer to the Stasi State than almost any other proposal that can be imagined. Why not impose a similar duty to report drug abuse (which equally harms children), or domestic abuse (which statistically frequently correlates with child mistreatment)? And why not make it mandatory to report illegal immigration (with its trafficking dimension) or, for that matter, tax evasion? After all, if we had more money we would surely put more resources into combatting such evils, wouldn't we?

Vulnerable children would, however, still be at the mercy of officials to act or not act as they exercise their discretions. Isn't this the same Keir Starmer who, when presented with the plainest evidence of law-breaking abortion doctors, decided to re-interpret the law (or does Brother Ivo mean disregard?), and sub-contract the matter to a professional trade union? There is no greater abuse of childhood innocence than the tearing of a child from her mother's womb for no better reason than being a little girl. But these slutty little females just beg for it, don't they?

It is perhaps uncharitable for Brother Ivo to consider that Mr Starmer is trying to restore his credentials following that controversy, but he still burns with indignation on the matter and is in no mood to make nice.

What is startling in this proposal is that, hearing of this revised and upgraded threshold of police intervention, inexperienced 'child protection professionals' may fear themselves at risk of criminalisation for failures to act upon suspicion, but there is no counterbalancing offence for those in authority failing to weigh the evidence or enforce the law. There have been over 30 public inquiries into child deaths since that of Maria Colwell in 1973, and they all say the same thing: everybody knew a little, but nobody joined up the dots. There really is no need for any more such inquiries, for this is always the conclusion. So how about placing criminal responsibility there?

Except that too is not very easy.

Social Services hold statutory rights, powers and duties as well. Sometimes they take early action on their own initiative; sometimes they have a suspicion but share responsibility by asking other agencies to confirm what they know at a case conference. That invitation to gather information (and 'join up the dots') is sensible, but do they yet commit a criminal offence?

How many of those sitting at the table of statutory child-protection conferences will be exposed to this reporting liability? Will they only carry responsibility for reporting or making the consequent judgement? What of the teacher's assistant, or the nursing colleague who steps in to cover for illness? If the case conference decides that, on balance, there is insufficient cause for concern, should all the individual members call the police, just in case? Is the one who doesn't potentially criminalised? They all now know, but may have varying levels of concern.

There is the problem of data overload as every slight concern is reported, and allegedly cash-strapped agencies and perhaps the Legal Aid system would have to resource the evaluation of each and every report. As 'protective reporting' grows, so will the cost and so will the fog of war.

Overall, we need better case evaluation, not more data.

To illustrate the problem, Brother Ivo recalls a sports coach who was reported by the 'concerned parent' of an opposing team when they observed, from 50 yards away, his brusqe rubbing of a cold child's arms on a biting wintery day as she waited to be substituted. The child's parent was adjacent and thought the allegation outrageous, but investigated it all was, and in extensive detail.

When this happens under the current regime, we have to ask whether we want or can afford to invite additional reports by anxious subjects whe think 'better safe than sorry'. The malicious will have a field day. How would the recipient of any such information - be it sports administrator, police officer or headteacher, etc - dare to take a proportionate view at an early stage?

There are many nursery teachers 'breaking the rules' about not touching children by giving a distressed toddler a cuddle. Brother Ivo himself responded to a child announcing her birthday to him in junior church by lightly kissing the top of her head. Honi soit qui mal y pense is no more. Brother Ivo had better do himself in, or pack a bag for when the historic case review PC police come calling.

And what is the sexual abuse of which we speak? Brother Ivo has written before of the virtual abandonment of the protection supposedly afforded by the age of consent. Shall we now see every adolescent relationship examined minutely? There is one immunity that we can predict with confidence: the case of the contraceptive advisor to the 14-year-old girl will, of course, trigger no obligation to inform parents or social services, and no aborted baby will be DNA-tested to secure solid evidence of the identity of the criminal seducer. No, that would be far too easy. Requiring it would offend the pro-abortionists, and they must be safeguarded above all others.

It is not, of course, the fact that Joe and Jo Public are not doing their jobs that is the true scandal, but rather that our public officials are never adequately called to account for their much more overt failures. Perhaps we should be reducing the public pensions of all those who have presided over child abuse within our public institutions? We could make the exist on the 'living wage', and begin with police, Social Services and employees of the BBC.

This is a serious suggestion. If there has been significant institutional failure - and their frequently is - why should there be an open-ended taxpayer liability to sustain such people in wealth beyond the average subjects' hopes and aspirations? Why should the consequences of disciplinary action fall short of curbing future reward for services inadequately performed? Legislative change that removes contractual liability to reward past failure after due process is neither unjust, nor contrary to any concept of human right that Brother Ivo cares to acknowledge.

Such failure would perhaps be more commensurate with the offence, and importantly would only have to be proved to a civil standard - on the balance of probabilities - rather than beyond reasonable doubt, as required by the criminal courts. Furthermore, civil/contractual retribution is likely to be harder in many cases than the criminal sanction. Our appeal judges reduced the sentence of Maria Colwell's killer to just four years (less remission). We shall be paying Sharon Shoesmith's pension for 30-odd years minimum.

Is this not better and more effective for society to apply pressure upon public servants to do that which they are paid to do? And while we're about it, rather than him complaining about the unreported specs in lesser folks' eyes, could we not perhaps start with Keir Starmer?

Brother Ivo is the Patron Saint of lawyers

Remember Remember the Fifth of November

We've actually largely forgotten. Guy Fawkes Night has been subsumed to Halloween and the fireworks syncretised with Diwali. Far from being a traitor, Guido Fawkes is lauded in his political objectives; his image idolised and transmuted to a symbol of liberty against capitalist tyranny.

Surely the Protestant Reformation was about the ordinary man and woman standing up to corrupt authority and declaring: "Let the people decide!" From that cry came the right to read Scripture in the vernacular and the freedom to approach God through no other intercessor but Jesus. We learned what it meant to be individual and equal, out of which flowed the liberties which led to democracy. Surely the establishment of the Church of England is irrevocably fused with our freedoms.

As Daniel Hannan MEP once observed:

People were in no doubt that a way of life had been preserved: our monarchy, our representative government, the things that made us different from Continental despotisms. King James told relieved MPs that, had the plot been successful, “it should never have been spoken or written in ages succeeding that I had died ingloriously in an Ale-house, a Stews or such vile place, but that mine end should have been with the most honourable and best company, and in the most honourable and best place, for a king to be, doing the terms most proper to his office”.

The parliamentarians, delighted to find their sovereign and themselves in one piece, didn’t stop to wonder what His Majesty might have been doing in a tavern of a brothel. They cheered him lustily and voted him a generous subsidy.

What would they say, those brave, drunk, patriotic, quarrelsome MPs, if they could see their successor Parliament surrendering its prerogatives, not as the result of a successful terrorist attack nor a bloody insurrection, not following defeat in war or foreign occupation, but by its own votes? How reduced we are as a people.

And he concluded that today we should be burning the Treaty of Rome rather than its Bishop.

Not, of course, that many places burn effigies of the Pope: most of us stick to the traitor Fawkes. One has to wonder, though, on the day we commemorate deliverance from a seditious continental terrorist plot and the treacherous subversion of Rome, that the continental powers have achieved the subjugation of England, her Monarch and her Parliament, and the Treaty of Rome has triumphed. The wheel is come full circle.

Before the meaning and significance of Guy Fawkes Night are lost forever in the forgetfulness of time and eclipsed by sundry festivals of light with altogether foreign affirmations and commemorations, it is worth reflecting on the value of the remembrance.

Gratitude to God for deliverance is no longer part of the national psyche: there has been no full-frontal invasion attempt by a foreign power for 70 years, and so our security and liberty are taken for granted by generations who have never experienced the threat of oppression.

The exercise of democracy has become a quaint tradition which many are content to see compromised and diminished, and in which millions no longer bother to participate at all.

The Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries knew what it was to contend for liberty against the oppression of Rome: and so they also knew how to celebrate and commemorate that deliverance with the sort of flame which, by God's grace, they trusted might never be put out in England.

Guy Fawkes’ gunpowder plot failed in its objective to assassinate the Protestant King James, blow Parliament to kingdom come and restore the old religion. And that failure meant the preservation of our Monarchy, liberty and independence from foreign princes and potentates.

And the King and Parliament decreed that henceforth the 5th November would be remembered throughout history with fireworks, bonfires and feasts of celebration; with gratitude to God, an abundance of joy and thanksgiving, patriotic revelry and not a little drunkenness.

His Grace would like to wish all of his British readers and communicants a most blessed Guy Fawkes Night, with an exhortation to his readers and communicants overseas to bear with us while we indulge in this annual eccentricity of which so few now know the origin, meaning or purpose.

True Protestants I pray you do draw near
Unto this ditty lend attentive ear,
The lines are new although the subject's old
Likewise it is as true as e'er was told.

When James the First in England reigned King,
Under his Royal gracious Princely wing
Religion flourish'd both in court and town
Which wretched Romans strove to trample down.

To their old plotting trade they straight did go,
To prove this Kingdom's final overthrow
A plot contriv'd by Catholics alone
The like before or since was never known.

Rome's Council did together often meet
For to contrive which way they might complete
This bloody treason which they took in hand
Against the King, and Heads of all the land.

At length these wretched Romans all agreed
Which way to make the King and Nation bleed
By powder, all agreed with joint consent.
To blow up both the King and Parliament.

For to keep secret this, their villany
By solemn oaths they one another tie
Nay farther, being void of grace and shame,
Each took the Sacrament upon the same.

Their Treason wrapp'd in this black mantle, then,
Secure and safe from all the eyes of men,
They did not fear/ but by one fatal blow,
To prove the Church and Kingdom's overthrow.

Catesby with all the other Roman crew,
This powder plot did eagerly pursue
Yet after all their mighty cost and care
Their own seat soon was taken in the snare.

Under the House of the great Parliament,
This Romish Den, and Devils by consent,
The Hellish powder plot they formed there,
In hopes to send all flying in the air.

barrels of powder privately convey'd,
billets and bars of iron too, were laid.
to tear up all before them as they flew,
a black invention by this dismal crew.

and with the fatal blow all must have flown,
the gracious king upon his royal throne,
His Gracious Queen likewise their Princely heir
All must have died and perish'd that was there.

The House of Noble Lords of high degree,
By this unheard of bloody tragedy,
Their limbs in sunder, straight would have been tore
And fill'd the air with noble bloody gore.

The worthy learned Judges grave and sagey
The Commons too, all must have felt Rome's rage,
Had not the Lord of Love crept in between
Oh! what a dismal slaughter there had been.

The King, the Queen and Barons of the land.
The Judges, Gentry did together stand,
On ruin's brink, while Rome the blow would give,
They'd but the burning of a match to live.

But that great God that sits in Heaven high.
He did behold their bloody treachery,
He made their own handwriting soon betray
The work which they had plotted many a day.

The Lord in Mercy did his Wisdom send,
Unto the King, his people to defend,
Which did reveal the hidden powder plot,
A gracious mercy, ne'er to be forgot

And brought Rome's faction unto punishment,
Which did the powder treason first invent,
And all that ever plots, I hope God will,
That the true Christian church may flourish still.

Cameron the "Common Purpose" Prime Minister

There was a lot of fuss a few months ago when the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby declined the invitation to be a patron of the RSPCA. Some saw it as a snub; others as a 'deliberate distancing'. But Lambeth Palace reasonably explained:

“Since taking office in March this year, the Archbishop has received many kind invitations to patron a large variety of charities and good causes. Each invitation has been an honour, and in an ideal world he would like to accept them all. However, in light of the sheer volume of requests the Archbishop receives, and the many pressures on his time and resources, he has reluctantly decided to restrict his patronage to a manageable number of organisations, based on where he feels his support could be most beneficial."

The "ideal world" scenario of accepting all such invitations is, of course, a gracious expression of appreciation, but an absolute nonsense: when you are new to a senior office of state, you will be very wary indeed of each and every invitation to become associated with organisations and individuals. Indeed, you will have a dedicated staff whose job it is to research backgrounds, form a view and then advise in order to protect your office and person from association with fraudsters, malcontents and unsavoury political activity.

And when that request to associate is a formal invitation to become a patron - to have your name very prominently tagged to an organisation's aims, ethical standards and objectives - you choose very carefully indeed, and limit yourself to those with whose aims, ethical standards and objectives you agree and can devote time to supporting. 

This will be the case for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Queen, and the Prime Minister, if not for all bishops, the whole Royal Family and all politicians - commons and peers.  

So when David Cameron plays down his patronage of the Dishaa Venture, and insists that its non-disclosure in the Register of Members' Interests was simply an "administrative oversight", you can safely bet that someone is being a little economical with the actualité.

Apparently he accepted this honorary position in 2010 - the year in which he became Prime Minister. On the Common Purpose website, we learn that "Dishaa is a Venture that expands, enriches and energises relations between India and the UK. By fostering discussion amongst diverse leaders it builds shared approaches to 21st century political, economic and social challenges and expand the existing partnerships, friendships and dialogues that are already taking place."

That's nice.

But who or what is Common Purpose?

His Grace isn't here to spoon-feed you: Google them.

And then ask yourself why a Conservative Prime Minister - or, indeed, any Conservative - would want to be associated with a group that, according to Philip Davies MP, is "trying to get their tentacles into every nook and cranny of the Establishment to pursue their Leftist, pro-European political agenda".

And he adds: "Common Purpose don’t want a free press because a free press exposes what they are up to."

So David Cameron freely associates his name and office with an organisation that seeks to diminish our liberties and negate our sovereignty.

Right.

Consider the elephant and be wise

From Brother Ivo:

Brother Ivo likes to offer an occasional piece which arrives from an odd perspective, and today he would invite readers to explore a little elephant psychology. It is not a field in which he claims any personal expertise, but life is infinitely fascinating and instructive.

His invitation to explore unfamiliar territory, however, will take us to issues not as far removed from the major preoccupations of this blog as may at first appear. There has been a lengthy study by Sussex University of African elephant herds, with a particular focus upon two groups. The first was the Kenyan population, which offered a stable control sample of normal and successful elephant behaviour. This was studied to ascertain its responses to a variety of challenges and stimuli. The second group was a South African herd which had been the subject of significant culling of the older animals during the 1970s and 80s.

The report on the BBC website is short and readable: the only thing that Brother Ivo notices is that our friends at the BBC have not begun integrating this study into a wider narrative about the support it offers to social conservatism amongst humans.

The herd which had lost the influence of elders and had its social patterns disrupted left juveniles to find their own ways of coping with uncertainty and stress. It was not a pretty picture. "African elephants' decision-making abilities are left impaired by culling operations that ended decades ago," University of Sussex research suggests. A study found that elephant herds that lost adults to culls during the 1970s and 1980s were less able to respond appropriately to other elephant calls.

Lead researcher Prof Karen McComb said the animals' "social understanding" had been impaired by the loss of adults. The scientists from the University of Sussex say this is the first "systematic evidence that fundamental social skills may be significantly impaired by man-made disruption.

There is already evidence that the loss of these adult elephants had dramatic social consequences on South Africa's elephants: the researchers describe these effects as akin to post traumatic stress disorder. In two protected areas in South Africa, Prof McComb told BBC News that "young, orphaned male elephants became hyper-aggressive and attacked and killed rhinoceroses... This really suggests that the breakdown in their social fabric, even though it occurred decades ago, has had a real effect on their decision-making processes."

Doubtless lessons are being drawn about the impact upon nature of the culling activity determined by human agency, yet to limit the conclusions of the study to elephants alone surely misses the bigger picture.

Brother Ivo thanks the Sussex scientists for proving that not all obscure inquiry is self-indulgent and wasteful, for does their work not insist upon parallels being draw with the equally devastating culling of UK family life during those same years?

Social Conservatives have always believed that happy children and integrated communities at peace with themselves arise out of traditions handed down through the experience, wisdom and recollections of past generations. This is not to deny periodic evolutions and adjustments, but always there is a core of cultural stability and close inter-generational bonds. What works for elephants applies in equal, if not greater measure with humans.

What proves disruptive is equally instructive. It is surely no wonder to us that the impact of the rapid social changes of the latter 20th century have left many of our young in a similar condition of isolation, confusion, aggression and unhappiness. Many are separated from a parent and the deeper support and control exercised by grandparents and the wider family. As the US politician Rick Santorum wisely wrote: "It takes a family to raise a child." He wrote that partly as a ripost to Hillary Clinton's book It takes a Village, though even that idea - initially taken from an African proverb about child reading - is not wholly irrelevant; it simply misses the first priority that values are initially taught and best enforced within a family - as Brother Ivo would say - as God intended.

Happy children tend to live within concentric circles of bonds, with close family, extended family and friends and neighbours contributing, though usually in diminishing degree the further they stand from the central bonds. The state, with its varying attitudes and "here today gone tomorrow" teachers, social workers and counsellors, often tends to add to the vulnerable person's sense of inconstancy and unreliability.

The support of the state is rarely enduring on a lifelong personal basis, and therein lies the difference. What it certainly does not take to raise a confident, socialised child is a commercially exploited, self-invented, self-regarding gang culture developed in an atmosphere of self-preservation. Too many of those lacking supportive families and not encultured on the streets are often to be found inventing their own culture in the isolation of their gaming consoles or the unboundaried social media. Many of these, detached from traditional family life - frequently but not exclusively within "the underclass" - are as damaged and disadvantaged as those elephant orphans whose parental culling through state policy, for doubtless well meaning purpose, has had long-term effects well beyond the expectation of those who planned the policy.

Just as animals have been disoriented by a disruption of the natural order, so the radical attack on traditional family life and social structures has left us with too many long-term victims of these social changes. They have low educational attainment and an increased incidence of substance abuse and self-harm. The trajectory of these problems began with the social revolutions of 40 years ago.

Amongst too many of our disengaged young, we see a misplaced self-reliance, a lack of empathy and a suspicion of those outside the narrow bounds of "yoof culture". Much of this is excused, explained away, or even championed by opinion formers in many sectors of politics, the media and academia. They will not willingly join up the dots to connect the causal link between misconceived change of former years, and current ongoing problems.

What the elephant study teaches us is that the social disruption of families has long-term consequences, and these consequences were unforeseen by those who promoted them with short-term thinking. They never dreamed that their quick fixes might lead directly to learning disability, dysfunctional social interactions, fear responses, and aggression, the like of which we see all to often in our schools and courts. It may take such oblique but striking evidence from the natural world to give the "progressives" within our culture pause for thought about their continued promotion of "alternative" lifestyles. We can see the consequences of such policies from our past, and they are not attractive.

The contemplation of the implications of this study led Brother Ivo to another field.

Psychology, like economics, is far from an exact science, and frequently there are multiple factors at work which produce or mitigate the effects of the problem under consideration. Sometimes similar circumstances create varying responses because other more benign factors or influences intervene. Some victims of adverse circumstances, even within the same family or grouping, have compensating resilience. Some are blessed by the strength offered by faith, others are held back by a predisposition to depression or despair. Trends can usefully be identified, but in such areas of study prediction is a less than exact science and more akin to an art.

That said, insightful artists can also contribute to our understanding of the human - and animal - condition. The study of the elephants may remind readers of William Golding's prescient study in adolescent tyranny, Lord of the Flies, which predicted similar effects upon young people traumatised and left to their own devices.

There is, however, an unanswered question from this study. The subjects were initially traumatised by the culling of the older generation. They suffered the secondary impact of loss of social bonds and controls. Which of these was the dominant event? Brother Ivo suspects it was the latter. As we enter the season of Remembrance, it is worth noting that the considerable impact of the loss of a generation of fathers, uncles and brothers from both World Wars was deep and heartfelt, yet not as societally disruptive as one might have predicted from modern psychological theory and methodology.

One suspects that the ties of extended family and the fortifying strength of faith and social institutions made the difference in keeping those earlier generations on the straight and narrow path. Those exposed to the horrors if war often did not speak of it, but returned to a context which supported, if not entirely healed. There may not have been modern-day counselling for the traumas suffered: social disruption and the acting out of internal pain was less prevalent than we see today. That may merit a little more reflection. Brother Ivo hopes to return to such themes as we remember our war dead.

One ought, however, to consider an alternative explanation for the observation of such studies, whether animal or human. If we discount the loss of social structures (which Brother Ivo certainly does not), one is left with considering the impact of psychological trauma in isolation of the loss of loved ones and the events causing it. This is a wider question.

Many children will suffer such loss within our own society. Additionally, we are accepting vulnerable people into our society, some from very different cultures which most of us (not least our politicians) do not understand. It may be a moral and noble policy, but it is not consequence free. What may flow from the importation of displaced, traumatised asylum seekers from war zones is a most troublesome area of concern for Brother Ivo. He does not wish to seem to lack compassion, but feels compelled to flag up a potential problem to which he does not currently know the answer. He suspects few others do either.

As Christians, we need to be our brother's keeper: we should not pass by on the other side. Yet as Margaret Thatcher correctly observed, the Good Samaritan gave real support to the victim he helped, offering ongoing concern and applying resources to address the continuing needs until health returned. He did not foist the hapless victim on the nearest social services and walk away.

There may be unforeseen risks and problematic consequences with a policy of sentimental liberality followed by benign neglect and isolation. Admitting people damaged by trauma would appear to have greater potential sequelae than we may think. If we are to continue an open-door policy towards genuine asylum seekers, the implication is that we need to be more sophisticated and comprehensive in identifying their needs and how we mitigate the longer term challenges they will face as they try to adapt to an unfamiliar life amongst us.

As an old friend used to say, "Being human isn't easy."

Being Christian certainly isn't.

Brother Ivo is the Patron Saint of lawyers

Farage: “We need a much more muscular defence of our Judaeo-Christian heritage"

The excellent Cristina Odone has a nugget of an interview with Nigel Farage in the Telegraph, in which the Ukip leader says:

“We need a much more muscular defence of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. Yes, we’re open to different cultures but we have to defend our values. That’s the message I want to hear from the Archbishop of Canterbury and from our politicians. Anything less is appeasement of the worst kind.”

Ms Odone continues:

Yet he speaks not as a defender of the faith — he ventures to church only four or five times a year — but of “our identity”.

This is the joker’s trump card, and he plays it ably, voice throbbing as he speaks of “the working classes who bear the brunt of excessive immigration”. It is not just the number of immigrants. Their “calibre” matters too. Who doesn’t meet his standards? “Criminals. There are 9,000 eastern Europeans in British prisons. I don’t think they should be here.”

Later, I can’t find evidence for that statistic anywhere. Nigel apologises, he thought he’d said foreign nationals, not east Europeans. In fact, the real figure is 10,786 foreign nationals in prison.

His list of those who will have no place in a Ukip Britain also includes Muslims who speak no English and wear the veil. “It makes people feel deeply uncomfortable. We go on about equality but under our noses, female genital mutilation has been going on in this country. Tens of thousands of women a year, but is anyone talking about it? It’s brushed under the carpet.” This slick eliding of veiling and mutilation is a typical Farage-ism.

“We have,” he says, “some very mixed values”. These include the “betrayal” of the family. “This has been the most anti-family government we have ever seen. The very fact that they pushed for gay marriage, and thought that it was important at a time when not even Stonewall was campaigning for it, shows you their twisted sense of priorities.” He is “100 per cent” supportive of stay-at-home mothers.

There are votes here. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them. Very many Christians across the denominations feel betrayed by the main political parties: their "identity" is being systematically assaulted, and the occasional invitation to No10 for prominent vicars, bishops and leading Christian commentators no longer quite cuts it.

The sheer numbers of those now immigrating threaten the creation of ‘ghettos’, as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has termed them, and others are finding.  The desire of some groups to maintain a distinct cultural and religious identity which is antithetical to British culture creates resentment which causes social disturbances.

The consensus of all the main political parties is that modern Britain has been enriched by ethnic pluralism and enlightened by theological ecumenism and European political union. But these developments have caused something of an identity crisis in the nation, spawning numerous books and articles which seek to define what is meant by ‘Britishness’. These have tended to evidence a lack of confidence in national identity or express diminishing trust in the foundations of the Christian heritage of the United Kingdom. The reasons have been attributed to a variety of causes, including relativism and multiculturalism, both of which have been exacerbated by the political process of devolution.

British culture cannot be cohesive when there is diversity of language, laws, traditions, customs and religion. Of course, culture can accommodate diversity, but ultimately the systems of governance and jurisprudence in a liberal democracy cannnot produce unity: they must be the manifest foundation of a pre-existing unity. As far as England is concerned, foreign encroachments have been fiercely resisted since the Reformation, yet the accommodation of Roman Catholics has developed incrementally of necessity to the extent that they agreed to abide by the laws of the state. A logical corollary of this is that Asian immigrants to the UK ought now to adapt their cultural traditions and religious expression to accommodate ‘British toleration’ or conform to those aspects of ‘Britishness’ which make society cohesive. And so a Briton has the right to (say) oppose or support British policy in Iraq and may campaign to that effect, write, agitate and stand for election towards the chosen end. But it is also elementary that he does not have the right to stone adulterers to death, hang homosexuals or blow up the underground or an aircraft.

Religious practices which conflict with traditional British liberties need an urgent focus. While few would defend such abhorrent practices as forced marriages, ‘honour killings’, female genital mutilation or child abuse, there is emerging an increasing tension between the assertion of individuality over the common good, and ‘human rights’ over community cohesion. Since there are no agreed criteria by which conflicting religious claims can be settled, religion is increasingly relegated to the private sphere: morality thereby becomes largely a matter of taste or opinion, and moral error ceases to exist. We are left with autonomy, equality and rights: the creedal values of liberalism that allow each to be whatever he or she chooses. Left unfettered, the assertion of these leads to anarchy, so a values system has to be imposed for society to function at all. This is perhaps what Nigel Farage means by the need for a "muscular defence of our Judaeo-Christian heritage".

While religion can play a role in promoting moral conduct, there is no longer agreement on which institutions are morally capable of implementing the rules of justice. Some secularising "modernisers" repudiate the idea that the Christian religion can any longer be a unifying force for Britain, but it must be observed that it has bequeathed to us our system of laws, administration of justice and our understanding of liberty. Only Ukip seems to understand and appreciate this.

Carry on, Nigel. You're doing God's work.

St Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury

Today is All Saints' Day, when we remember and honour all those Christians - known and unknown; visible and invisible - who have gone before us and now dwell in Glory in the presence of the Lord. It is a communion of the living with the dead; a day preserved in the Book of Common Prayer, now classed as a Principal Feast, along with Easter Day, Ascension, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday, Christmas Day, and the Epiphany. In the New Testament, the saints are all believers - the whole Church - past and present. It has, however, through history and tradition, come to be applied to persons of heroic sanctity, especially those who have given their lives for the sake of the Gospel - those who have been martyred for the Faith. The distinction is sustained in some churches in the remembrance of All Saints followed by All Souls.

His Grace offers for reflection:

The Collect

O Almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect in one communion and fellowship, in the mystical body of thy Son Christ our Lord: Grant us grace so to follow thy blessed Saints in all virtuous and godly living, that we may come to those unspeakable joys, which thou hast prepared for them that unfeignedly love thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

For the Epistle

Revelation 7.2-12

And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God; and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth, and the sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed; and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand, of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Of the tribe of Judah were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand.
Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.
After this I beheld, and lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders, and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God, saying, Amen; Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

The Gospel

St. Matthew 5.1-12

Jesus, seeing the multitudes, went up into a mountain; and when he was set, his disciples came unto him. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

His Grace is not, of course, a saint. The Church of England has not traditionally declared unilaterally its own saints, though it does honour its own martyrs and heroes of the Faith. But now that the Roman Catholic Church has finally conceded that something good came out of Anglicanism - namely, (parts of) the Book of Common Prayer - is it not time for His Grace to be beatified, or, at the very least, declared a Doctor of the Church?

Surely he can be forgiven his commitment to the doctrine of the Royal Supremacy, though he believes it to be a fundamental datum of biblical revelation. Surely he can be forgiven for his vacillations as royal policy veered from one side to another under King Henry VIII. Surely he can be forgiven for seeing in King Edward VI a second Josiah, anointed to cleanse and purify the Church of corruption. Surely he can be forgiven for presenting as both a papalist and a conciliarist, confusing generations of Anglicans who were to follow.

The Church of England, since the Reformation, holds implicitly, in purpose of heart, all which the ancient Church ever held. The Reformation was the work of God, through which the Church in England continued. His Grace, though not remarkable for genius or fame, enjoyed the surpassing glory of martyrdom, in vindication of the truths of the Gospel. His testimony brought fame; his genius is now seen even by the Church of Rome on the Ordinariate Use. He stands with the congregation of the faithful.

If the father of Anglican spirituality and defender of the English Church be not a saint, then who can be? Perhaps some kind ecumenically-minded soul in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham might plead His Grace's cause?    

Sir James Munby - High Priest of Secularism

Sir James Munby, Head of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales, is a self-regarding, pompous, publicity-seeking pillock.

That is not His Grace's assessment, but that of His Honour Sir Nicholas Mostyn, barrister, judge and keen farmer, who famously named his pigs after Munby following a legal procedural dispute.

But it is a judgment with which His Grace wholeheartedly concurs. For Sir James Munby has delivered a speech in which he asserts that the law of this country is secular, and that Christianity no longer informs its morality or values. In this multicultural, multi-faith, relativist, pluralist state, only secularism can deliver justice that is neutral - i.e., only that which is secular can be truly just. And so out go 4000 years of the social history and religious tradition that defined Judaeo-Christian jurisprudence and developed notions of morality, and in comes the mumbling Munby's mundane reasoning of the supremacy of "secular neutrality".

It is not the task of judges "to weigh one religion against another", he pontificates, for "the court recognises no religious distinctions". And, apparently, "Christian clerics have, by and large, moderated their claims to speak as the defining voices of morality and of the law of marriage and the family".

"Happily for us," Munby avers, "the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs."

Except, of course, when it comes to enforcing the state orthodoxy of equality and the inviolable beliefs of secularity. In this new theology, there is no theos: human rights are sacred writ, and salvation is found in the veneration of secularism. Therein lies the true source of freedom and justice.

Except, of course, it is no freedom at all; indeed, it becomes a manifest oppression to Christians seeking to live their lives in spirit and in truth. What are the foundations of British notions of virtue and morality if they are not Christian? What is the basis of English law if not Christian? The influence of the Church in the courts may have declined, but it has not "disappeared". And it is bizarre that Munby posits that the antithesis of the secular state is theocracy: 26 bishops in the House of Lords and a Monarch who is Supreme Governor of the State Church can hardly be compared to the infallible fatwas pronounced by Iran's ayatollahs.

It is interesting that Munby designate himself and his colleagues "secular judges", since he swore an oath "by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth...and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

Setting aside that it is a strange secularist that swears by Almighty God: it is of more immediate concern that Munby swore allegiance to the Queen, whose Coronation Oath demands the maintenance of the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.

Perhaps Munby might remind himself that the XXXIX Articles of Religion as found in the Book of Common Prayer still constitute the law of the land. And Article 37 is quite clear:

The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction.

This has not been repealed and so still forms part of the British Constitution through the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Act of Union 1707. The clergy of the Church of England are still required to acknowledge that the Articles are ‘agreeable to the Word of God’ (Canon C15 of the Declaration of Assent). And clergy are also obliged by law to baptise, marry and bury. And as Church courts are courts of the Realm, and Measures of the General Synod have the effect and status of Acts of Parliament, Munby appears to be completely ignorant of the fact that the Constitution remains fundamentally Christian. 


But his speech follows the judgment of Lord Justice Laws a few years ago, who, sweeping aside the centuries-old Anglican Settlement and the constitutional position of the Queen (not to mention manifesting scant comprehension of the Christian faith), determined: ‘The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.’

Empowered by EU Enlightenment, these judges are becoming judicial activists in their aggressive secularism. The Christian faith is intricately bound with the constitutional and legal basis of British society. Our values, virtues and notions of morality stem from a Judaeo-Christian foundation. It is not for the Judiciary to declare the relationship dead.

It is ironic indeed that we are winding back the clock on the 1689 Act of Toleration and 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act, and moving toward the reintroduction of a religious bar to holding office. Christian magistrates, registrars, paediatricians, GPs, teachers, nurses and foster parents are finding it increasingly difficult to manifest their faith without risk of disciplinary action, dismissal or prosecution for offending the ascendant secular religion.

Freedom of religion is now universally subordinate to the rights of minorities: laws protecting people from discrimination must take precedence over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

And now we have a Royal Charter which amounts to state regulation of the press. Politicians and lawyers have conspired to nullify our ancient and hard-won liberties: we are no longer free.


Happy Reformation Day.

Women bishops – enter the CofE Ombudsman

From Brother Ivo:

There appears to be a degree of relieved satisfaction expressed at the recommendation for a Church of England Ombudsman to assist in resolving the problems surrounding the implementation of its policy to appoint women bishops.

The early reporting of controversy over the "failure" to "modernise" the Church frequently overlooked the fact that the Church has already committed itself to the appointment of women to its highest offices, but, as always, the devil was in the detail. The last vote of General Synod was about the 'how' not the 'if', but having sent the matter off to a widely-drawn committee to find a way forward, the recommendation is now forthcoming and will be considered at next month's meeting in London.

It is pleasing that a degree of support came from across the board, with representatives of both 'pro' and 'anti' groups represented. As its chosen chairman, the Bishop of Rochester James Langstaff brought not only a conciliatory voice to the committee's deliberations, but also good knowledge of the opponents' case. Some of the leading resistant voices in the Synod debate came from his diocese and so personal contact and pastoral responsibility would have added to his appreciation of what might or might not prove a useful area for exploration.

It appears that there were only two abstentions from the committee of 15, which sounds promising, yet Brother Ivo has his doubts.

He does not want to have doubts, and hopes the steering committee has made those personal contacts and developed that level of confidence and trust that was often missing from the emotionally-charged debate on the floor of the House of Laity debate. He hopes that the near unanimity bodes well.

On every side there was honest opinion and sincere conscientious belief. Even those with whom Brother Ivo disagrees could not be regarded as having no case, and this very integrity of disagreement is what leaves a lingering suspicion that the Ombudsman route may not prove the panacea which nearly everyone hopes it will be.

There are two key questions. Who will be appointed as the Ombudsman? What principles are to be applied by them as they address the transition difficulties?

The first is tricky enough. It may be possible to find someone from within the debate attracting sufficient confidence all round, but that cannot be certain. A complete outsider to the debate might prove equally problematic, with protagonists from either side not unreasonably wary of an unknown quantity. Brother Ivo has previously written on the question of the inevitable subjectivity of all judges, and does not apologise for reminding readers of the views of the American Realist school of Jurisprudence which teaches: "Tell me who the Judge is and I will predict the outcome."

That is neither as cynical nor as naive as it may first read.

That problem pales into significance, however, when one moves to the second question.

As its Scandinavian name suggests (we never did find an acceptable anglicised alternative), the role grew within a highly specific context. It was an early means of helping citizens resolve complaints of maladministration within a highly homogenised society with very clear shared values of right and wrong. Whether a public official had strayed beyond his remit and/or applied his discretion improperly in an individual case was and is a relatively discrete factual issue. If disputing parties share the same starting premise, reconciliation is not so very difficult.

When the disputing parties approach a matter from very sharply differing starting positions, however, the value of the easily approved Ombudsman becomes revealed as superficial. What chance is there of mediating or reconciling the views on kosher slaughter between an Orthodox Jew and a New Age Vegan? The question is posed to illustrate the limitations when this kind of "issue resolution" is offered by the conciliation culture.

Will the Church Ombudsman (or woman) work from principles hammered out in advance or might they be free to propose or devise their own scope and strategies? There is coherence and merit in either approach, but pretending that outsourcing the resolution of the problem from Synod somehow resolves it is a little optimistic.

It is entirely right and noble to attempt to hold disparate opinion within the Church of England. Schism has not served the wider Church well, but we may also need to prepare for the possibility that honest people of integrity may be irreconcilable on this issue, and that the practical consequences of this may also need to be faced. It may, of course, be that the contemplation of those identified consequences will influence some of those voting. The cost might outweigh the values in contention, however fervently those opinions may be held.

An old priest friend used to confess to managing his Parochial Church Council by always insisting upon consensus, but he was canny enough to ensure always that he drew the summary of what that consensus comprised. It worked perfectly well on that micro scale, amongst people of broadly similar mind. Readers will forgive Brother Ivo if he is less than confident that a similar strategy will be viable on the larger stage.

Brother Ivo is the Patron Saint of lawyers

Welby: England has ill-treated the Scots for 800 years

So, the Archbishop of Canterbury flies out to Iceland and does what archbishops do: he delivers a sermon in a cathedral. His subject? "God is a God of justice". Marvellous stuff.

He called on churches to "cry out and claim and struggle" for justice, in order to bring "testimony and witness to words and prayers". He explained that "justice faints and hope fades" when the church "looks in on itself". And he called for a renewal of prayer so that the Anglican and Lutheran churches might be "caught up" with the "God of justice" who calls people into action.

"In Iceland there is the pain of the crash which took place five years ago," he empathised. "In every Diocese in England churches take part in food banks, in a society which has no need for such imbalances of wealth. On the richest continent on earth we cannot devise an economic system that provides for the poor and yet forces the wealthy and the powerful to share equally the burdens of debt, and the heritage of materialism gone mad."

"Any serious view of the nature of human beings," he said, "tells us that without the action of God their can be no true justice, and that the Church is there to be the widow, to cry out and claim and struggle. That must involve action, which may be slight or grand."

It was all going so well, until:

And it is such a powerful movement that we’re even working with the Scots about it. And there is a miracle. It takes a lot to make the Scots willing to work with the English. Understandably, we’ve spent about 800 years ill treating them.

The "powerful movement" to which he refers was his call for the re-establishment of credit unions to take on the 5000% usury of Wonga. He explains:

I made what seemed to me the fairly obvious comment that I considered this to be usury and usury had been a sin since Moses. Well, it was a quiet day in the press. And they had nothing important to report, so we found that they reported it rather large scale. It was a casual comment. I wish I could say that I had a grand strategy, but I didn’t. It was an accident. But it was an accident in which God was involved. Because it has created such momentum that there is a great new movement to change the way we do community finance.

Well, it must be another quiet day in the press: 800 years of England's ill treatment of the poor Scots is now being reported on a "rather large scale", and it is not yet clear that God is involved.  

When you're good at soundbites, you need to use them wisely and sparingly. It was manifestly a lighthearted joke - another "casual comment" - but it is already circling the globe, and Alex Salmond has added it to his referendum armoury. Sadly there was no helpful contextual history - a passing mention, for example, of the fact that the Scots tended to forge alliances with the French and conspired to invade England once or twice would have been helpful.

But everything that surrounds the assertion of England's ill-treatment of the Scots - the theology of reconciliation that preceded it and the anthropology of cooperation that defined it - will now be subsumed to the feverish tabloid headlines of the English Archbishop who is stoking the cause of Scottish independence. The Daily Mail is already on the case. Others will follow.

Justin Welby's predecessor Rowan (Lord) Williams learned the hard way, with his assertion that, in the context of increasing ethnic plurality and religious equality, sharia law in Britain is "unavoidable". It was a reasoned theological point reflecting a political reality. But the naivety was astonishing. He seemed to treat Radio 4 as if it were an Oxford theological college, assuming his audience to be made up of academic theologians with the ability to dissect and analyse words with his theo-political precision. But ++Justin is not so naive: he is, as The Spectator noted, "a very political archbishop": he knows and understands fully that every word he utters will be seized upon by certain sections of the media for an undesigned emphasis and turned to some unintended meaning.

The Church of England has always struggled with the tension between affirmation of the gospel and assimilation to the prevailing culture; between transformation and inculturation. Establishment commits the Church to full involvement in civil society and to making a contribution to the public discussion of issues that have moral or spiritual implications. If Rowan Williams showed us anything, it is that these cannot easily be reduced to soundbites, neat headlines or trite blogposts: profound matters demand profound contemplation and an articulation which does them justice. More often than not, Lord Williams of Oystermouth was purposely woefully misunderstood and misreported by a ferociously judgmental and increasingly hostile anti-Anglican press.

His Grace prophesied that his successor would fare no better: it is the zeitgeist.

The assertion of England's 800-year-long ill treatment of the Scots cannot be put down to "an accident": unlike the Wonga episode, these words form part of a prayerfully considered and thoughtfully crafted sermon; not a spontaneous bit of levity in a magazine interview. But is it not a shame that bishops and archbishops may no longer use humour in their sermons?

There is an unbridgeable gulf between the God who laughs (Ps 2:4) and the one in whom there is no humour. Protests over cartoons satirising Mohammad combined with images of Muslims criticising frivolous aspects of Western culture often leave the distinct impression Islam and comedy are incompatible. The most concerning thing for Britain is that those Muslims who dare to express humour or satrise aspects of their religion are derided by those who hold to the Ayatollah Khomeini school of Islam. He once said: "An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

God forbid that the Church of England should ever become so drearily stuffy, priggish or straitlaced. So, go on cracking your jokes with a twinkle in your eye, Archbishop Justin, for they bring your sermons of salvation and messages of social justice to the whole nation.

Yes, God is involved.

"Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ should expect to be called bigots"

From the Rev'd Julian Mann:

A letter published by the editor of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's local paper, the Sheffield Telegraph, is alarmingly illustrative of the triumph of political correctness over Judaeo-Christian values.

In the edition of October 24th, the editor published a letter by Ms Laura Woodhouse objecting to Mr Greg Fletcher's view, expressed in his letter of October 17th, that 'for relationships to have a strong foundation and to last sex should be seen as something special and only for that one life-long partnership within a marriage between a man and a woman'.

Responding to a report about the number of teenage pregnancies, Mr Fletcher had also said: 'Outside of marriage, sex gets cheapened and reduces people, particularly women, to objects and not human beings.'

Here is Ms Woodhouse's letter in full:

I must say I was rather amused to learn that my highly enjoyable marriage-free sex life has, according to Mr Fletcher, reduced me to an object.

What I found less amusing was his assertion that sex should only take place between "a man and a woman". Far from supporting youngsters, such homophobic beliefs contribute to the discrimination and abuse suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people, and I was disappointed to see Mr Fletcher's bigotry printed uncritically in the Telegraph.

Sheffield Hallam MP Nick Clegg clearly shares Ms Woodhouse's negative opinion of evangelical Christian readers like me who agree with Mr Fletcher. Even if he does not regard us as bigots, he does see us as 'dinosaurs' as he made clear when addressing his recent party conference.

But more pressing than the view of a prominent reader like Mr Clegg, who is quite likely to lose his seat anyway in 2015, is why the editor of the Sheffield Telegraph was apparently so willing without comment to publish a criticism against his newspaper for printing Mr Fletcher's letter 'uncritically'.

Such editorial prostration before a politically-correct rant like Ms Woodhouse's is astonishing. The letters page in the Sheffield Telegraph is called 'Opinion'. The editor at the very least should have had the self-respect to point that out under Ms Woodhouse's letter whilst making clear that she was entitled to her opinion.

Surely such obeisance to PC by a local newspaper cannot be blamed on Leveson. Even under the proposed Royal Charter, which British newspaper groups are rightly opposing, there would be no requirement to include editorial comments against readers' letters that assert that sex should only take place within heterosexual marriage.

As a regular reader of the Sheffield Telegraph, I have no quibble with the editor's decision to publish Ms Woodhouse's letter. In fact, I would deplore an editorial comment criticising an opinion in a reader's letter even and perhaps especially one in which I am accused of bigotry.

Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ should expect to be called bigots by the likes of Ms Woodhouse. The editorial practice she is advocating would reduce us Christian readers to cry babies.

It is not clear what comment under Mr Fletcher's letter she would have liked the editor to have published. Would it be something along the lines of: 'It is the view of this newspaper that, far from supporting youngsters, such homophobic beliefs as Mr Fletcher's contribute to the discrimination and abuse suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people'?

Sounds like the kind of editorial philosophy of which Joseph Stalin would be proud.

Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK.