Is It Sinful For Catholics To Support ‘Children in Need’?

BBC Children in Need’s record on pro-life issues…

BBC Children in Need is a charity of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to raise money for the support of children, including disabled children. Its main fundraising vehicle is an annual telethon held in November.

The BBC Children in Need website reveals that in 2012 and 2013 it made grants to numerous rape crisis pregnancy centres, sexual health centres and projects supporting homosexual youth. In SPUC’s experience, such centres and projects often support and/or facilitate legal abortion, abortifacient birth control and/or damaging forms of sex education.

Click on the picture to read the rest of the above SPUC article and then tell us if you think Catholics are morally free to support the BBC Children in Need charity event.

277 responses

  1. Thank you Editor for alerting people to this just in time …Its absolutely vital anyone who is PRO LIFE does not support any so called charity that bloodies its hands with Abortion ,Euthanasia,so called contraception ,sterilization ,Homosexual practices …especially what they are doing in the so callled Third World thanks to Obama and Bill Gates …SPUC have produced a most magnificent booklet that gives people the whole truth of where your hard earnd money goes when you give it .It is shocking that most UK Charitys will have some involvement certainly Christian Aid ,Save The Children, Oxfam Unicef,.Medicins san Frontieres ,Red Cross Genes for Genes day Salvation Army [without prejudice as they may have changed their abortionist policy so do please check it out ]and Barnardos had no problem with homosexuality nor did NSPCC !.I truly do not want to mislead anyone here …all have this involvement and thats just the tip of the ice burg…so if you are PRO LIFE it leaves you with very limited Charity choices same as Charity shops …if you are not sure then write to
    their H Q as often the volunteers are not aware but be prepared to be shocked when you do read this Charity Booklet available online from SPUCS website …Also if through this you decide to disaffiliate yourself from a Charity then do contact the HQ and tell them Why…Recently Amnesty International International announced it would hand out condoms

  2. Sorry I touched the wrong buttons …..But once you find out what Charitys support please alert your P P as not all are aware of the darker face of Charity ..The late Great Father P Marx OSB..RIP..really went to war on Unicef ..And FR J Morrow echoed that as a Catholic Charity choices would be limited .When you think that BPAS,Marie Stopes ,Brook Advisory are all Charitys fattening their bulging stygian coffers through Abortion somehow puts it all in perspective When I see Save the Children ‘s slogan child born to die I always think well if they are allowed to be born in the first place !

  3. So, calling you all to please let Editor know how you feel on this very important and valid question… Thanks. Inform your contacts of this also.

    Thank you


    Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 00:00:41 +0000 To:

  4. Wendy,

    Thank you for your several comments so far – I hope you don’t mind me letting the rest of our bloggers know that you are not a Catholic. Your zeal here, today alone, puts the rest of us to shame, so thank you for your links and exhortations.

    Will study the links a little later – “things to do right now and people to see” as the saying goes, but will be back asap to read your links.

    In the meantime, I absolutely agree that CAFOD is definitely on the “charities not to be supported” list. Without a shred of doubt.

    • Is Wendy Walker thinking of converting? I know she would be very welcome, and that every Saint in Heaven will be praying for her.

      • Catholic Convert,

        I think we can safely say that were the Church to be in a “normal” condition and not the current emergency/crisis condition, Wendy would be among the many who would be flocking to convert.

        As a potential convert yourself, Catholic Convert, you are in a prime position to pray for special graces for Wendy. As you indicate, she would be a fantastic Catholic. She’s already a fantastic person!

        • She could do what I’m doing. Go through the RCIA and join an SSPX Parish at a later convenience. I know its a bit sneaky but…desperate times.

    • Crofterlady,

      As Wendy indicates below, if you scroll down to the end of the SCIAF website, you’ll see that SCIAF works with other agencies, including CAFOD. They are never going to say “we promote condoms” but if you ask them what they do in the field of HIV prevention, you’d be able to put two and two together and not come up with five, if you get my drift.

    • I just have and I saw this:
      8. What is SCIAF’s policy on condoms in relation to HIV and AIDS?

      “The spread of HIV and AIDS has many causes and our approach includes reducing poverty, providing information about the transmission and prevention of HIV, encouraging people to get tested for the virus, reducing the stigma surrounding it and giving practical support and care to people living with HIV and AIDS and their families.

      As an official aid agency of the Catholic Church, and in respect of the Church’s teachings, we do not fund the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms. We ask that all our partners working in the area of HIV prevention provide individuals with full and accurate information about all means of HIV prevention and that this advice is scientifically correct.”

      This doesn’t seem to be promoting the use of condoms or have I misread it?

      • Crofterlady,

        At first reading, what you quote is reassuring.

        However, on closer examination, there are some concerns. The first paragraph could be taken from any website on the subject of HIV & AIDS. For a Catholic organisation to work at “reducing the stigma” is not good enough. While there are exceptions, via blood transfusions, for example, sexually transmitted diseases are usually contracted as a result of promiscuity. This fact should be brought out in any policy statement in any Catholic organisation. It’s the “Catholic” in CAFOD and SCIAF that gets neglected – big time. It’s difficult, I suppose, for charity workers to talk/write about sin, abstinence etc. when there’s been little to no mention of it in pulpits for the past fifty or so years, and there again, they won’t want to be accused of “obsessing” about these issues…

        In the second paragraph we read that SCIAF policy is simply not to “FUND the supply, distribution or promotion of condoms…” At the time of the CAFOD expose, which I see is reported in the Christian Order link provided by Wendy in one of her posts above, CAFOD was found to be actively distributing condoms, not necessarily “funding” them.

        The SCIAF policy also asks that “partners … provide individuals with full and accurate information about ALL (scientifically correct) means of HIV prevention..(emphasis added by moi).

        Now, anyone who has ever worked with the sex-education brigade, knows that they firmly believe that condoms have a very high success rate in reducing HIV and they don’t tend to let the facts get in the way of their advice. So, there can be little doubt that SCIAF is, possibly at least, facilitating – or at least not preventing – the promotion of condoms by their partners, if not directly by their own employees and volunteers.

        Anyone from SCIAF who can demonstrate to the contrary, is welcome to come on here and correct me. I would be only too pleased to be (unwittingly) misinterpreting their policy.

  5. I agree it’s definitely sinful to support Children in Need and really most other charities these days. They are all connected in some way to the contraceptive industry. I once read a really informative article showing that they all connect and how they network with one another.

  6. Ask any ‘charity organisation, especially one entitled ‘children in need’, how they square giving funds to abortion providers when their endeavours are supposed to help children ..and who is more vulnerable than unborn children. Its an absolute disgrace to all the generous people who, after years of this November event being televised and repeated on radio stations throughout the country have been duped into thinking they are helping children live a better life when the very organisation they are sending cash to is helping to destroy children.

  7. I think it’s very important to highlight the immorality of these charities. It’s important to be educated in this, because I’ve often been on the receiving end of nasty comments when I refuse to give donations to these so called “good causes”.

  8. I was directed to read SCIAFs annual accounts some years ago and was shocked to see that the “wee box” lenten campaign, gathering the lay faithful ‘s contributions from every Catholic parish in Scotland comes to the total of £600,000.
    Then reading on – to discover that SCIAF’s staff salaries and office admin costs are in excess of £600,000 a year….I wonder how many Catholics would encourage their children to give – when they know the truth that all the collections from every Scottish Catholic parish in Scotland do not even cover the running costs of SCIAF.
    My, how deceived we have been, I used to think my money went to help the desperate poor, not to give the staff, in Glasgow, very comfortable salaries. This was not how it was set up by HE Cardinal Grey who insisted on a – no more than 5% running costs – sadly today its 18+% running costs.
    I haven’t given them a penny since.

    • Graeme Taylor,

      The high salaries have been a cause for concern to me for a long time. A few years ago I was appalled to see a loosely defined job advertised for £24,000 per annum.

      It’s another reason why I, personally, do not donate to most charities. I’d sooner help some individual in need (of a cup of tea and a cream cake… 🙂 )

  9. Some brilliant comments here …we must not forget either COMIC RELIEF ….that one pours money into so called Third World sexual health and” Wimmins” projects …I remember many years ago deeply concerned at how the most magnificent and beautiful Shrine at Walsingham deeply supported Cafod and I believe to this day despite letters of concern still does no one listened ……I suggest everybody prints off the full version of SPUC Charity booklet …I dont know if you can still purchase them !….and spreads the word they are so useful ..A lot of people will not believe you at first ignorance is definatly not bliss ..when your money is being used to kill babies .Also do speak to Clergy about it as many are not aware of the poisonous side of Charity either…It seems no one informs them ,which is a great shame

    • Wendy, we’ve discussed Comic Relief in the past (on our old, hacked and gone blog).

      I’m of the opinion that it is better to avoid all charities these days – they are all supportive of the popular “rights” – whether women’s “right” to an abortion, contraception etc. or “gay rights” including the increasingly vociferous “Transgender” lobby.

      We are only bankrolling corruption if we support the majority of charities these days. No wonder so many old millionaires leave their money to dog and cat homes!

  10. We certainly don’t support Children in need and i too have concerns about SCIAF – I’d be very interested in the current Financial returns – for sure CAFOD have been guilty of some non catholic approaches – What is more alarming in a sense is how many of our Catholic High Schools and primaries are supporting this children in need?

    • Well, I find it hard to blame teachers for not raising concerns about SCIAF because when I did so re. CAFOD when I taught in England, all hell broke loose. Supporting these “Catholic” charities is one of the ways they keep up the appearance of a Catholic ethos so they don’t want to highlight anything negative let alone scandalous about them.

  11. Children in Need? Er, well…er? How can it be Children in Need when they support agencies that murder them in the womb? Why do I feel suicidal?

    Sanctae Mater Dei- Oremus!!!!

    • Indeed Catholic Convert. It makes you want to give up when you hear all this about the so called Charities. I met someone in a train once who said he had worked for most of the high street charities and said that they were all corrupt.

      Sanctae Mater Dei, pray for us.

      I will have a look at the booklet from SPUC which I didn’t know was still available.

      Does anyone know the line taken by Traidcraft who help women to establish work centres in poor countries and sell their quite expensive produce here in some Catholic churches?

  12. Clotilde,

    I’ve emailed Traidcraft to enquire about their policies on a number of moral issues, so when they reply, will post the information here. Their website lists CAFOD and SCIAF as partners but there is no statement of policy on moral issues that I could locate, albeit on a flying visit.

  13. Personally I do think it is a good idea to e -mail/write to so called Charitys and ask them their views on PRO LIFE /HOMOSEXUAL .causes and of course if they support them ……..some Charitys do lie about these causes but some readily admit it

    • I’ve had a reply from Traidcraft. Here it is…


      Thanks for getting in touch.

      Traidcraft was established as Christian response to poverty – fighting poverty through trade. As an organisation we work with people of all faiths and none. With regards your specific query regarding Children in Need – we have no relationship with this organisation at present (they are not a funder of our work overseas). Comic Relief is an organisation from which we have received grant funding in the past. In recent years this grant funding has been directed towards Traidcraft projects in East Africa supporting small-holder farmers to diversify their crops. Within the UK we have worked with Comic Relief to encourage consumer awareness of Comic Relief by over-stickering our Geobar cereal bar product sold in Sainsbury’s. This has been driven by our relationship with Sainsbury’s and their support of Comic Relief.

      With regards the wider question about Traidcraft’s organisational stance on the issues you list- Traidcraft has a number of Foundation principles (the full set can be found on our website) however three that are particularly relevant to your query are:
      • We express Christian principles in our policies and activities, especially the principles of love, justice and service which were lived and taught by Jesus.
      • We support the development of people to achieve their God-given potential.
      • We promote the fair and equal treatment of women and men and protect the interests of children.
      Concerning the issues listed in your query, Traidcraft does not have a public stance on as they do not fall within our direct mission. END.

  14. Editor,
    Thanks for your efforts to find out Traidcrafts policy regarding providing so-called sexual health (not very healthy) care. If they have no problem with supporting comic relief that makes them a bit questionable. However if they dont get involved with the issues discussed that’s a ‘relief’.

  15. What do people think about buying things from charity shops? I once asked a traditional priest about supporting a cage run in the local Protestant church and he said this was ok if we were paying a legitimate price for a service or item – a cup of tea. Ie. The intention is not to support the organisation. Would the same principle apply?

  16. Wow.
    How bigoted and prejudicial can a group of people be?
    Be very wary that none of you end up with an STI or become pregnant through rape, I would hate to think of the support you would/ wouldn’t receive.
    I am astonished that people are really spouting these views. Is this some kind of hideous parody of the dark side of religion?

    • Louise,

      The only “bigotry” I can see is coming from you.

      Basic morality tells us two wrongs don’t make a right. So, rape is clearly wrong, but this doesn’t justify contraception or abortion. Elementary.

      • Basic morality seems to be an unknown concept to the people on here. Please do continue as you are digging yourselves a great big bigoted hole here. I am sure your god(s) would be so proud.

  17. Good heavens. Surely as Christians you support charity ? I’m sure the Good Samaritan would have. It is NOT sinful as a Catholic to support Children in Need”. As Jesus said ” suffer the little children”. I would suggest you all have a good look in the mirror, and your heart. I understand you may not agree on everything the charity spends its money on, but the good far outweighs what you perceive to be ”bad”. I’d be more concerned with all the bad press re child abusing priests, and focus your concerns to make sure these priests are brought to justice and that it is not continuing to happen.

    • Scottish Lass,

      Got a big bad of old chestnuts there? Your post is completely idiotic and non-sensical. Children In Need and Barnardos, so called charities that claim to make the lives of children better are, in fact, funding the murder of children through contracpetion and abortion.

      Listen, drop the daft obsession with child abusing priests. Those priests who did abuse are repulsive – no question about that – but it is a tiny number. Why not focus your anger on the family? More fathers, uncles, brothers, etc abuse children.

      By the way, as heinous as the abuse the children is, I have no hesitation in saying that abortion is a far worse crime.

        • Now, Louise, it is useful to do proper research. Quite unwise to publicly display your ignorance.

          Many forms of contraception can actually cause abortions.

          • Please forgive me, I have looked online and trawled my notes made from when I studied to be a voluntary sexual health advisor but the answer is not there. Can you please enlighten me?

            • Condoms don’t do anything – you’re right so yes, it’s OK not to use them. Waste of time, in fact.

              Yet, oddly enough, when I attended an inservice course for education and health professionals some years ago, and questioned a doctor who was advocating condoms for the young in schools, he answered the facts I put before him with the following, shocking, words: “yes, I know that, but if you tell them that, they won’t use them.” In other words, as long as there was the illusion of doing something about the sex-related problems engulfing our society, that’s fine. Who cares about the kids?

              Very honourable, very professional, very responsible, very caring – NOT.

              Or, to put it another way – utterly disgraceful. And you would entrust your children to these sexperts?

          • That link may have more gravitas if it weren’t published by John C Wilke whose position on rape and pregnancy weren’t so preposterous and discredited.
            “Willke is a proponent of the discredited concept that female rape victims have physiologic defenses against pregnancy”
            Christian Life Resources 1999

              • Like I say below – better to rely on the “evidence” coming from those with a vested interest. Makes it so much easier to ignore the truth. Here are some fact about the use of condoms in Africa, where we’re told they’ve been ever so successful (well if the sex industry told the truth, their Government funding would dry up):

                Billions of condoms have been shipped to Africa in order to prevent the spread of HIV.[1] However, countries that have relied on such “protection” to curb the epidemic are not seeing any great decline in the virus.[2]

                One nation that clearly demonstrates this problem is Botswana. For over a decade Botswana has relied upon widespread availability of condoms in order to combat AIDS. Campaigns for abstinence and fidelity were not emphasized. Instead, billboards about “safe sex” lined the streets, while schoolchildren learned songs about condoms. According to The Washington Post, “The anti-AIDS partnership between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and drugmaker Merck budgeted $13.5 million for condom promotion—25 times the amount dedicated to curbing dangerous sexual behavior. But soaring rates of condom use have not brought down high HIV rates. Instead, they rose together, until both were among the highest in Africa.”[3]

                Unfortunately, Botswana was not the only nation to make this mistake. The journal Studies in Family Planning pointed this out in their article “Condom Promotion for AIDS Prevention in the Developing World: Is It Working?” Its authors noted that “in many sub-Saharan African countries, high HIV transmission rates have continued despite high rates of condom use. . . . No clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion.”[4]

                However, there is a clear example of an African nation turning back the epidemic of AIDS by other means. In the late 1980s Uganda was viewed as the worst nation in the world in terms of HIV/AIDS infections.[5] In 1991, 22 percent of people in the country were infected with HIV. By 1999 the number had dropped to 6 percent.[6] Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni insists that their unique success among African countries is due to their behavioral approach. He said, “In comparison with other countries per capita expenditure on condoms, we spend far below other developed countries, which emphasize use of condoms in their fight against the disease.”[7] Instead of placing the primary emphasis on condoms, they emphasized abstinence and faithfulness first. As a result, they have experienced the greatest decline in HIV in the world.[8] According to the Journal of International Development, it was “the lack of condom promotion during the 1980s and early 1990s [that] contributed to the relative success of behavior change strategies in Uganda.”[9]

                Some “safer sex” advocates attempted to claim credit for the success of Uganda’s AIDS decline. But Dr. Edward Green, a Harvard senior research scientist, ruled out such a connection, since “Uganda shows a significant decline in STDs in the absence of a male condom prevalence rate over 5 [percent].”[10] In fact, condoms were not widely used in Uganda until after much of the HIV decline had already taken place.[11] The real reason for the drop in HIV is that between 1989 and 1995 casual sex in Uganda declined by 65 percent.[12]

                Source (read rest of the article/footnotes)

            • That’s what I expected. I don’t know anything about Dr Wilke. But at a skim, the site seems to be giving facts about the abortifacient nature of contraceptives.

              And – forgive me, Sugar Plum – if I don’t just take your word for this man being “discredited”. If the link gives you the information you sought about contraception being abortifacient then, anyway, the writer’s opinion on anything else in this world is irrelevant.

              Listen: I once emailed a link to Sky news with irrefutable evidence of the failure of condoms in Africa, after a disgracefully ignorant news report, singing the praises of condoms as being “safe”. Know what they replied? They replied that they’d read the stuff I sent, but would continue to use “the recognised science”. That is, they would continue to peddle the lies perpetrated by the sex industry because that’s who pays for the “recognised science”.

              For the record, it’s a simple fact that contraceptive pills are abortifacient. End of.

              And since you atheists are all so insistent on having facts and evidence, have you asked your doctor how come that the only drug which it’s OK to take long term and regularly is the contraceptive pill? Doesn’t that strike you as a bit, er, suspect? Like, as long as you’re not producing babies, they don’t give a toss about your health?

      • Barnados ? Another charity working for the good of children. it seems your sense of common decency and all sense has deserted you all. Child abuse is a sin of the highest magnitude. How can you defend, for example former Cardinal O’Brian ? Whilst I don’t always agree with abortion I defend any womans right to have the choice. Especially for the victims of rape. Contraception should be encouraged in many African countries where the spread of AIDS is leaving many children motherless. I am a Christian, with Christian values and I hope compassion. It seems that many of you on here have none.

        • Cardinal O’Brien (it does help to spell his name properly!) did not abuse children. You need to apologise for insinuating such a thing!

          You support a “woman’s right to choose”? So, would you support a woman’s right to murder her three year old child?

          • A woman’s right to choose applies to when the foetus is inside her body. Unless, of course, you are being facetious I would’ve thought you would understand that. It does not apply to a born child.

              • Because once a child is born, it is a person. A being that can survive on its own and has some element of autonomy. An unborn child is dependant on its host for everything. I do not agree with abortion at the point in pregnancy where a child can survive on its own outside the womb. This is a matter for scientists to research and make recommendations. I think (not certain) this point is reached at approximately 24-26 weeks.

                • Actually, not long ago a professor at Oxford University suggested that it was time to think about legalising infanticide and she used all the pro-choice arguments of the abortionists. It was all over the news at the time. It’s the next logical step.

  18. As Catholics, the people on this blog are obliged to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is not ‘bigoted’ or prejudicial’ to refuse to give money to a charity that supports abortion, abortion inducing drugs, LGBT youth groups and the free distribution of contraceptives. If we did support this sick and evil group, that is secretive in saying where it’s blood money goes, that we would be seriously jeopardising our relationship with Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. As for you Scottish Lass when you said ‘but the good far outweighs what you perceive to be ”bad”. No, I’m afraid not, abortion is an abominable crime, worthy of the likes of Josef Mengele. We, as Christians support charity, I give to the Salvation Army (not because I support this group, but because I support the people it supports), but to fund a heinous group that funds abortion is not charity, it is a crime against humanity.

    I doubt you two are Catholics, you’re probably Protestants, or worst Atheists, but just don’t come on here spouting your leftist and marxist drivel. As for Louise Hersee’s idiotic comment concerning STI, then you should research Edward C. Green, who is not Catholic. He said a phenomenon called ‘risk compensation’ developed whereby, where people had free contraceptives to protect themselves, they were actually willing to take greater risk, i.e not using condoms even though they were available. You should know that in San Francisco that over 50% of gays have AIDS, and the US Dept. of Disease Control said that by 2050, over 50% of US gays NATIONALLY will have AIDS. Wherever condoms go, AIDS increases. As for abusing Priests, if you used your half a brain, you would know that 90% of US and Irish cases were between sexually mature teenage boys and adult men, therefore, it was not a paedophile problem but a homsexual problem.

    Get your facts right before you come here whinging, or else you are liable to make yourselves look like prawns. You two are the parodies.

    Is it a coincidence? Scottish Lass posted her comment 3 minutes after Louise Hersee. Are they two likeminded friends or the same person? ‘Great minds think alike’. You’ve got to be smarter than that to catch us oot hens.

    • The priests abused children. It wasnt a homosexual issue, it was paedophilia. If they are under legal age then its child abuse.

      • The majority of priests convicted of abuse didn’t abuse children. They abused teenage boys. This is not paedophilia, it’s pederasty. It is a homosexual problem.

        • I concur, it is most certainly NOT a homosexual issue but the massive cover up by the catholic church (whereby priests were simply moved to other areas rather than dealt with by the police) is disgraceful.

    • Have you got a scientific link to 50% of gays will have AIDS? Lesbians certainly wouldnt for starters…

    • Are you seriously saying that being a protestant is ‘worse’ than being an atheist ? Really ? And it is a FACT that abuse by priests in the UK concerned both male and female CHILDREN. And for the record I have never met Louise Hersee. Again I would defend anyones right to an opinion, even if it is one I find abhorrent.

      • I did not say that being a Protestant is worse than Atheism. I said ‘you’re probably Protestants, or worst Atheists’. Of course you know Hersee, don’t be economical with the truth, we can see through you.

  19. Also, Louise Hersee, we wouldn’t get an STI, because we are not feckless and profligate. Most of the people on here are married and the rest, myself included, are celibate, until marriage. This is a Catholic blog, we don’t believe in contraception. We wouldn’t put ourselves in a position to have sex with a person who may have an STI.

      • Good for you resisting temptation and all. However, a lot of STIs are often symptomless so you wouldn’t necessarily discover you had one until you had a routine blood test. Safe sex is always preferable to an STI!

        • Well, if you think using a condom will protect you from STIs you’re mistaken. They’re not reliable for HIV and they have a 100% failure rate when it comes to HPV or Herpes, as the virus is often carried on parts of the body not covered by the condom.

          HPV or Human Papilloma Virus (Genital Warts) is the main cause of cervical cancer in women and a contributory cause of rectal cancer in homosexual men. An active outbreak of Herpes whilst a woman is giving birth can infect and kill her baby.

          Do you really think the sex industry have the best interests of people at heart? Or, are they more interested in preserving the illusion of action to keep those Government funds rolling in?

          Strictly rhetorical question…

        • Celibacy and chastity is always preferable. People should learn to control human weakness and promiscuity. But of course, Atheism was invented to cater to human weakness.

          • Um, please allow me to educate you as to what atheism is.
            We are all atheists, you just have one more god to reject. Atheism isn’t a religion, it isn’t a dogmatic way of life, it isn’t anything, it’s just a term used to describe someone that doesn’t believe in fantastical entities. Atheists can be good or bad, male or female, aristocracy or working class, their really is no rule to being an atheist.

    • I do hope that the person you marry has been celibate too, as we never know what that person might have done before they met the person they wish to marry. I have been married for almost 38 years now but my husband still surprises me !

  20. Where does it say in the Torah or NT that abortion is specifically outlawed? I cant find it amongst all the passages saying to support the widows, the orphans, the needy etc

      • The hebrew means ‘murder’. There is nowhere in Torah that outlaws abortion. In fact, the test for an adulterous woman was a potion that would leave her barren/unable to carry a child to term. God seemed ok with that.

          • I want all these Atheist Nazis, whose views would make Mr Eichmann blush, to go on Abort67, and look at the pictures of aborted babies, and then look at the arguments against Abortion. If you are still pro-Death then you really are heartless. There is fundamentally no difference between Abortion and what the Yorkshire Ripper did. You’re all carbon copies of Beverley Allitt.

        • Have you ever watched “The Silent Scream” ? If not, look it up on YouTube and then try to defend murdering innocents in the womb!

    • Elizabeth,

      Your question betrays an ignorance (with respect) of the nature of Sacred Scripture, Divine Revelation and the Church of Christ.

      For example, nowhere in the Bible – old or new Testaments – do we find the word “Trinity” – yet belief in the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) is an (obvious) article of Christian Faith.

      What you WILL find in the Scriptures is that life is a “blessing”, that children are always spoken of as a “blessing” (never as a clump of cells or a nuisance with which we may dispense); that God knows us EVEN BEFORE we are formed in our mother’s womb, as the Prophet Jeremiah tells us, and that Christ bequeathed His own authority to His Church to teach what God has revealed: “He that hears you, hears Me.” and “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church…”

      I could go on (and frequently do) but that will need to suffice for now. God uses Scripture and Sacred Tradition to reveal His divine will to us and absolutely nowhere in the Bible or in Tradition is there any support for murdering babies in their mother’s womb or for any of the other deranged behaviours now legalised in our “enlightened” and utterly decadent society.

      Luv ‘n stuff 🙂

      • You deny Numbers 5: 12 to 31 then? Or ‘Genesis 38:24, …Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.” Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”

        Baby n all for that one.
        or, a list of my favourites…
        “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.” Numbers 31:17

        “Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.” 1 Samuel 15:3

        “Dash their children, and rip up their women with child.” 2 Kings 8:12

        “Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.” Isaiah 13:16

        “They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.” Isaiah 13:18

        “Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.” Ezekiel 9:6

        “Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” Hosea 13:16.

        I’d say all that was pretty deranged to be honest.

        • Good try, Elizabeth, but, as I have already said, you betray an ignorance of the nature of Scripture, not to mention ignorance of the nature of God. I simply do not have the time to explain the context of each individual verse which you have chosen to post, but, at a glance, you appear to be confusing the biblical revelation of children as a blessing (to the point where God told us to go out and produce more of them) and instances of God’s wrath and justice.

          Listen, if you’re looking for a nice wee cosy God who is nothing more than an extension of your good self at your very best, a God who is all nice and sugary sweet, nothing bothers Him, we’re all pals together, well, my best advice to you is to avoid the Bible. Like you would the ten plagues…

          • I do like most of your comment there Editor; I get fed up with people trying to modernise and liberalise their gods. At least you are honest and stick to your dogma.

            Catholics are, and should be, homophobic, sexist, misogynistic and callous to all that do not agree with their beliefs. It is in the bible and so, it is true for you and is an integral part of your make up as a human being.

            There is no space for woolly liberalists such as myself in real religion. This is why I could never be a part of one again (apart form the fact I do not believe in a god).

            Good for you for showing everyone what the real meaning of god is, I hope lots of people that have been reading this site tonight have a better picture of the catholic church as a result.

            I do hope this post is allowed to stand, I do not think I have insulted anyone.

            • If you an Atheist, what gives you the right to come on here pontificating-if you’ll pardon the pun? Do I go on Atheist blogs? No, because fundamentally I don’t care what you morons believe.

              • Catholic Convert,

                With all due respect, we must not make anyone feel unwelcome here. We can’t go quoting Our Lord’s exhortation to go out and be missionaries and then reject those unbelievers who come to ask us questions. Behave 🙂

                  • Is the term ‘slagging off’ allowed? I am a bit confused as to what would be blasphemous and what wouldn’t. Could I please have some clarification on this? Is all swearing blasphemous or is it just specifically terms that include the words Jesus, god etc?

                    • ‘Slagging off’ is not swearing, it is colloquial. Blasphemy only applies to insults or curses etc directed at God, Mary etc.

                    • Louise,

                      I haven’t seen any “swearing” – by which I take it you mean using bad language as opposed to swearing an oath – just avoid both and you’ll be fine.

                      It would help if you would refer to God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) with a capital “G” since “god(s)” refers to pagan, i.e. non Christian belief in their deities and also avoid accusing us of belief in “fantastical or magical entities” – let’s try to use the correct terminology. The sex-educating brigade are very insistent on that, so I’m happy to apply their rule on that here 🙂

                  • Catholic Convert,

                    I get more annoyed at the regular bloggers who “stag off” the atheists who come on here from time to time, than I do with the atheists. It’s absolutely disgraceful to make anyone feel unwelcome in any way whatsoever, whether in person or online. I’ve asked you nicely, now I’m telling you in words of one syllable – stick to the issue and do not make personal remarks.

                    We get this from time to time, and usually the “regular” goes off in a huff sometimes never to be seen or heard from again. I do not give a toss. Catholics who are rude to atheists are every bit (more in fact) abhorrent to God – and definitely to me – as the atheists who come on for the worst of motives, to “slag us off.” I just wish I was as clever as those bloggers who can read the motives of others. I, being a simple gal, don’t know how to do that…

                    I believe some of the Church’s greatest converts began by doing rather more than merely “slagging off” Christian doctrine – Saul, who held the coats of those stoning the first Christians, springs to mind. St Paul to you.

                    Now, Catholic Convert, if you find you cannot discuss amicably, if forthrightly (that’s fine) with the visitors here, go to another thread or take a break. Do NOT make personal remarks to anyone.

                    I will be closing this thread later tonight, but in the meantime, I hope all the Catholic bloggers will be as helpful as possible to the visiting atheists – who are really, although they don’t realise it, Catholics-in-waiting. The less obstacles we put in their way, the better.

                    OK folks – take the hint. Next time I won’t be so nice 🙂

              • How very very sad that you feel that you have to resort to name calling. I do believe that is a personal attack Editor.
                I am free to post on any open site that I wish to, as are you. The difference between us is that I am interested in what others think and your mind is closed.
                I wish you well and hope that you find some resolution to your obvious anger issue.

                • I’m not angry, I’m as calm as I could possibly be. Say hello from me to your baby murdring friend scottish Lass. I’m sure she’s coming around for a tunnock teacake.

                  • Oh catholisconvert1, I repeat, I DO NOT KNOW SCOTTISH LASS.
                    I feel for you I really do. You are coming across as extremely defensive.
                    If you read the comments again, you will see that I am the one that had an abortion so would be what you term a baby murderer. I do not agree with your views but am willing to read and listen to what you have to say if you could please stop attacking those that have come onto this site recently.
                    As your Editor noted, it is not really on for you to dismiss those that disagree with you. Please be nice.

                    • Don’t you regret aborting your baby? Don’t you ever regret what might have become of your baby?

                    • As I said before, it wasn’t a decision I made lightly but, in all honesty, I do not regret it one bit.

                      I now have a wonderful son and I am more than aware of how much I have to give him and how woefully unprepared I would’ve been to become a mother (of a disabled child) at such a young age. I am grateful to the priest that advised me at the time and know I am very lucky in being surrounded by a loving family that helped me so much.
                      I am definitely pro choice but only up until a certain point in pregnancy. That point is where a child can survive outside the womb on its own. It is not a nice topic and it can bring out the worst in people behaviourally but I will always support a woman’s right to her own body.

                  • That’s enough. If you want to be a Catholic, you need to learn that we are supposed to take people at their word. Louise is NOT Scottish Lass – she’s already said so forget it. If you have nothing helpful to say, Catholic Convert, please stop posting here.

                    • Sorry, Ed for using your reply button, but I’m concerned by Louise’s comment about the ‘advice’ received from the Priest. Did he tell you to abort it? Ed, I’m sorry for not being charitable or respectful, but I cannot tolerate or respect opinions that justify murder. Sorry.

                    • catholicconvert1, I am sorry that you find this distressing. Yes, I was advised by a catholic priest to have an abortion. The details of why are written elsewhere on here but I was in danger of miscarrying as the foetus hadn’t formed (or attached itself) properly. The priest was a local man that I knew through a catholic friend and he was extremely supportive, he even visited me in hospital. I am truly grateful for his willingness to treat me as an equal even though he knew I wasn’t catholic.
                      He was one of those people that really stick in your mind, not because of the big things he achieved but the small kindnesses he distributed, he worked alongside the cofe church here and knew everyone in the community.
                      He was also really good fun and even joined me and my friends at the local pub for a dance sometimes!

            • Louise,

              Thank you… I think!

              Except that we would need to define what we mean by “homophobic” and “sexist” etc.

              In summary, Catholics do not have a hatred of homosexuals or women/men (to whom “sexist” applies) any more than we have a hatred of robbers, burglars, murderers etc. We just don’t think it’s right to use our bodies in a way that is unnatural. We hate certain behaviours, but never the people who misbehave in that way.

              PS I don’t think you’re a “liberal” at all. “Liberals” were the people who were against the establishment, in the past. Now that all the “liberal” causes have been “won” – legalisation of abortion, homosexual unions etc. they are / you are part of the cultural establishment. WE are now regarded as the rebels!

              • This is where we disagree, I believe homosexuality is natural and innate in some people and animals, just as heterosexuality is in others.
                For me, the way you have placed homosexuals on a par with robbers, burglars and murderers is just plain wrong.

                The term liberal is not to be confused with minority or under-dog.
                lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
                a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
                b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

                • Did Scientists ever find a gay gene? No. So how do you know it’s innate? I hope that you will allow your son and any subsequent children to form their own balanced judgement.

                  • Hello again! We keep meeting on here 🙂

                    So, in answer to your first question: Did scientists ever find a gay gene?
                    No, they have not. However, they have not discovered a heterosexual gene either but it exists and, I would think you would agree, it is innate behaviour in those that choose to have sex with those of the opposite sex. There has been some interesting work into the markers on the X chromosome known as Xq28 but no, nothing definitive has been found (Dr Dean Hamer). As technology advances, who knows what we’ll discover? Would you be open to changing your views on homosexuality if there were proof that it is innate then?

                    So, to the second part of your post, my son. I am raising my son alone and am trying to raise him in the best way I can. I think the most important thing I can encourage in him is a love to learn. If he can learn to think for himself, question things whilst being open-minded to the answer then he will no doubt look at different religions and I shall not stop him. I have taken him to churches as I find them beautiful architecturally and shown him religious paintings. I shall not quote from the bible to him or send him to any faith school but I shall support any choices he makes in life. I shall, in short, encourage him to be the best person he can be, whether that be religious or not.

        • Those words you mention are those of the Prophets to say what will happen to the Israelites. What that says in Samuel etc are not the words of God but the words of military leaders and Kings of the Earth. I also believe some of them are discussing God’s Judgement, in the sense that no one will be spared from it.

  21. Your views are heinous and offensive; why should they go unchallenged?

    I could write so much more but you are doing all the work of proving yourselves to be vile all by yourselves. Do continue. I have posted lots of links to this blog as I am sure that lots of people will be interested in knowing how the catholic church really works.

      • I realise that is not a particularly intelligent comment to make but there’s been precious little evidence of that anywhere on here!

      • Garry,

        I gather that you consider anyone to be “bigoted” who adheres to a belief that is not in accord with your own – not too bright, Sugar Plum, since we’re all, or so they tell us, entitled to our own opinions – for a bit longer anyway, until the PC Brigade can get us locked up for preferring not to donate money to a particular charity. Only a matter of time, I suppose…

    • Louise,

      You might have picked another day to encourage your pals to post here, since I’ve been out and about looking slim, glamorous, witty and intelligent elsewhere and now have a bunch of catching up to do thanks to you.

      Listen, Sugar Plum, our views, which you find so “heinous and offensive” were absolutely the norm for centuries: “our views” represent the morality which your grandparents and great-grandparents would have taken for granted. That life begins at the moment of conception and should be protected until natural death. And that a man should marry a woman and vice versa. A couple of bridesmaids thrown in, a bit of cake etc. All of that was the norm until very recently.So forgive us for not jumping unthinkingly on every bandwagon that comes along.

      • Traditions are very hard habits to break and I pity those that cannot open their minds to change (but look at us using science, technology and modern medicine eh?). However, cherry-picking pieces of the bible for your own reasons and spreading hatred amongst your fellow man is not a very nice thing to do.
        Apologies for the extra work load. Just to add that I have tweeted links to this thread to Stonewall, a few celebrities and Children In Need so it may be a long night. I hope you have coffee!

        • I suppose Stonewall will be coming on here to defend the tiny minority of priests who have committed pederasty as A number of Stonewallians have been campaigning to legalise it for years!

        • Modern medicine actually shows that live begins at conception. Dr Robert George said this because the bundle of cells are growing and developing from the second the sperm meets the egg, and developing nerves, organs etc. Abortions in this country take place up to 24 weeks, or 6 months. Babies have survived after being born at 23 weeks, one of whom was called Celestine, but she only lived for 3 hours.

      • Actually, homosexuality has been very common for millenia and was fine in many societies. Not ‘recent’.
        As for marriage, Torah marriage was polygamous until it was outlawed by the Rabbi’s after the destruction of the second temple. It’s possible we shouldnt mention Lot and his daughters either. All okb y G-d.
        Havent you read the Torah?

        • Homosexual acts are very unhealthy. They involve using a part of the body for eliminating waste. That’s why gay men are at risk of cancers, injury and blood poisoning.

            • A silly response. That part of the male anatomy has two functions – eliminating waste and enabling the transmission of life. The acts committed by gay men involve an area reserved for one natural purpose only.

              • Sorry to disappoint (again), but not all gay men engage in anal sex if that’s what you are referrring to. A lot of married consenting heterosexual couples do though, is this allowed?

                  • Thank you Josephine. Now that is interesting.

                    From my understanding, it is reporting the threat of UNSAFE sex and encouraging HCPs to advise gay men on how to have safe sex.

                  • Well, I haven’t led a very sheltered life… No, in truth, it is mostly from online forums, other media and friends and family.

                    More evidence can be found in the Kinsey data though.

                  • Here Petrus, I knew I had read it somewhere!

                    In the 1950s in the United Kingdom, it was thought that about fifteen percent of male homosexuals practiced the method.[11] The Gay Urban Men’s Study (P.I. Stall, UCSF) and the Young Men’s Study (YMS, PI Osmond/Catania, UCSF), indicate that 50% of men surveyed engage in anal sex. The Laumann study claims that 80% of gay men practice it, while the remaining 20% never engage in it at all.

                    A survey conducted from 1994 to 1997 in San Francisco by the Stop AIDS Project indicated that over the course of the study, among men who have sex with men, the proportion engaging in anal sex increased from 57.6% to 61.2%.

                    Edward O. Laumann’s 1992 survey, reported in The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States found that about 20% of heterosexuals have engaged in anal sex. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, working in the 1940s, had found that number to be closer to 40% at the time. More recently, a researcher from the University of British Columbia in 2005 put the number of heterosexuals who have practiced anal sex at between 30% and 50%.[13]

                    A French survey of five hundred female respondents concluded that a total of 29% had practiced anal sex, though only one third of these claimed to have enjoyed the experience.[14]

                    In 2005, a survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control determined that the incidence of anal relations in the heterosexual population is on the increase. The survey showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women aged 18 to 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex; in 1992 a similar survey found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4 percent of women 18 to 59 had.

                    Anal sex exposes participants to two principal dangers: infections, due to the high number of infectious microorganisms not found elsewhere on the body, and physical damage to the anus and the rectum due to their vulnerability.

                    Recent reports have documented that risky behavior is on the rise among men who have sex with men.[22] Likewise, among men who have sex with women, a 1992 study of socially and sexually active Puerto Rican men indicated that of the more than 40% who reported having anal sex with women, very few had used condoms.

  22. My hubby is RC and we will be giving to children in need tonight as true god would want you to help people in need

    • Is there any child more “in need” than a defenceless baby in his or her motber’s womb? Only a monster would think it justifiable, under any circumstance, to murder a baby in the womb. The same liberals who denounce the Nazis, descend to Nazi- like behaviour by condoning the murder of babies in the womb. They are, in fact, the heirs of Hitler.

    • Your husband is not Catholic, because if he was he would know not to support a charity that supports abortions and contraception. Tell your husband from me that he should be ashamed of his self. He is no longer a Catholic. I doubt he goes to Church anyway. He will be answerable to our Divine Lord on the last day.

  23. As a Christian I find your comments to be disgusting. A charity that supports safe sex is invaluable. The fact that hiv and aids has increased in 3rd world countries has nothing to do with homosexuality but to do with rape. Condoms save lives FACT. It prevents the transmission of STIs STDs and unwanted pregnancies reducing the abortion rate. I would question the church and how they fatten their pockets with donations made far and wide and then what it is spent on and if ever single penny was spent in your eyes on ‘just’ causes. Its the views that this thread shows that show Marxist theories

    • If you support charities who fund reckless behaviour and the murder of innocent babies you are NOT a Christian. You are a butcher.

      If everyone abided by Catholic morality there would be no rape, no STIs and no abortion.

      • The rising STI numbers in the states are probably due to poor sex education. The right wing bigots that refuse to teach the younger generation of anything other than ‘their’ way.

        The Catholic church is probably more responsible for butchery than anyone on this thread. People have been murdered in the name of the church for centuries yet you overlook that and choose to judge (which is gods job) women who make hard decisions about their body the history of which you know nothing about.

        • Liz,

          Gerragrip! Sex Education is poured into children these days. Talk about being in denial!

          Teaching children that if they sleep around they will (a) not be happy (b) risk disease and (c) risk having a baby out of wedlock and the dearly beloved user and abuser disappearing, is not “right wing bigotry” – its stating the facts.

          Introduce me to someone in their 40s who doesn’t regret their promiscuity and I’ll think again. I’ve never met ANYONE who didn’t regret listening to the sexperts.

          • Sex education isn’t in America in a lot of the strict Christian areas where STIs are on the increase as their sex education consists of “don’t do it till your married” and that its a bad, dirty, nasty thing to do. Yes that is really a sex education. Sex is a perfectly healthy, normal practice between consenting adults not something to be looked down upon and be shameful. My partner and I are not married, I have 2 children (both are christened) and I regularly have dinner with my vicar and he has never once judged my lifestyle or commented on my children being born out of wedlock. I would not allow anyone to judge my actions as that is the job of my god not a group of people that believe to live their lives in accordance to the scriptures yet breeding nothing but hate and contempt to all their fellow men that fo not live up to their idea of Catholic morality. First and foremost christianity should be about forgiveness, love and acceptance.

            • Liz Hubbard,

              Here in the UK we have had sex education in all schools for many years now. We also have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and sexually transmitted diseases are very high (I haven’t got the latest statistics but they are very high).

              Most people are cohabiting as you do, and most men of the cloth seem to be like your vicar, and say nothing about this. That’s very wrong of them, because they have a duty to teach what Christ taught and that was not just about forgiveness but about obeying the Commandments. Jesus said that if we loved him we’d keep his commandments. If your vicar really did love you with a Christian love he would tell you that, and if he didn’t get invited back for dinner, at least he’d have an easy conscience.

              I don’t understand why you think we are “breeding nothing but hate and contempt”. I’ve read through the comments here and can’t see any hatred at all except from the new bloggers like yourself.

              • What really should’ve made my vicar wince is that my 2 children are with another man then. No, my vicar has known me for nearly 30 years and helped me escspe an abusive relationship. He has provided me with nothing but council and kindness and never once have I experienced from him any kind of judgement.

          • Hi Ed. I did not regret my promiscuity. It was great fun. You really have missed out. I am very happy and totally disease free and always have been. I enjoyed listening to the sexperts and picked up some great tips as well.
            Just another quick question. Now that I am a sinner where is my motivation to not just really go for it and commit some terrible sins seeing as I am damned already? I mean is the whole Dante thing correct and there are levels of hell or is it just one catch all punishment? Funnily enough I could not find the bit in the bible that mentioned hell. Could you point it out to me please? Thanks. X

            • James Deacon,

              You don’t say what age you are, or how long you’ve been sexually promiscuous, but certain serious sexually transmitted diseases can take years to be diagnosed, so maybe you shouldn’t be too sure that you are disease-free, not that I’d wish that on you or anyone else.

              I wonder about the women you were promiscuous with, how they are feeling now, maybe used? Did you ever marry and did your promiscuity continue after marriage? I hope you don’t mind me asking but I’m just interested in how differently you think and behave from we do.

              Since mocking God is a blasphemy I don’t think you could possibly commit more serious sins. As for not knowing where hell is mentioned in the bible, why not Google to find out just how often Jesus himself mentions it. You weren’t looking hard if you couldn’t find any mention of it. I can’t remember exactly how often he mentioned Hell but it was quite a lot.

    • You are not a Christian. You can’t be if you support contraception etc. Look at the editors post on HPV and Herpes, which are passed on orally or from skin to skin contact. Also look up Edward C. Green- ‘Maybe the Pope was right’.

  24. To be true. That the catholic church is corrupt and capitalist. With a ‘we are better than all attitude’

  25. The chestnut comment is a little hackneyed, surely?
    As for leftist, marxist drivel. Not really an argument either, is it.
    Charities have the right, providing registered to work in any way that they choose. So, if that means acting in a fair manner, good luck to them. You see, it is bigoted and prejudicial to be against homosexuality, so bigotted it is in fact against the law. As for being anti abortion, awfully sorry, but it’s a womans right to choose what she does with her body. Yes, I know it’s an old argument, but it is a legitimate one, unlike some of the tosh posted above. Now, I am sure there are plenty of catholic charities you can give your money to, legal ones too, if you’re really clever, so why not do that rather than trying to judge those you have no right to judge and getting your undies all knotted and your morals further warped than they already so obviously are.

    • Sorry, it’s not against the law to be against homosexuality. Ignorance. A woman does not have the right to murder a baby. Let’s call abortion by its proper name – murder.

      Surely it is satanic to get your scants in a twist about a handful of priests who indulge in homosexual acts with minors but then defend homosexuality? The homosexual lobby have been campaigning to legalise sex with children for decades! Shocking.

      It’s a disturbed person who will defend the murder of babies.

      • Please supply the link showing LGBT campaigns for paedophilia. There might not be any…
        I do believe lying is a sin.

    • She is not destroying her own body though is she you idiot? Everyone has a right to life. Is it just because it can’t live and function independently? If that’s the case why not kill disabled people who have been born, as they are dependents? You probably would murder your own baby if it was disabled. That is not woman’s rights, that Nazism. She is allowing the annihilation of an unborn baby. The word ’embryo’ means ‘growing within’ and the word ‘foetus’ means ‘unborn offspring’.

  26. ‘Leftist drivel’?
    Are you suggesting that all Catholics are right wing.
    That explains a lot.
    The BNP and UKIP have some pretty ‘interesting’ ideas about homosexuality and women’s rights too.

    • “Woman’s rights” is a red herring. Does a woman have the right to murder a 1 day old baby? Of course not. How then can she have a right to murder a baby in the womb?

    • On the contrary, Catholics are free to support trade unions, welfare and nationalisation etc, as we see in the Christian Democrats in Europe. The largest and most powerful unions in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany were Catholic. As for your comments on the BNP, the Pope Pius XI said ‘one cannot be a Christian and an anti-Semite’. You should read ‘Mit Brennender Sorge’, ‘With Burning Worry’, which concerned Nazism and it’s racial policy. It is not right wing to support human life and normal marriage.

  27. Gosh, this site is receiving a lot of free publicity tonight, feel free to thank me.
    On a more serious note, some of the comments made have made me question my belief in humanity.
    I am (shock horror) a devout atheist and find all religion odd but do not preach unless I am faced with something distasteful written or done in the name of religion (this happens quite a lot).
    I do hope that parents now reading this will decide against sending their children to any kind of faith school, especially those that preach the teachings of cathol.

    • You support the murder of babies but then question your belief in humanity by reading this blog? Only an inhumane being would defend the murder of babies in the womb.

  28. Child abuse is child abuse.
    You can call it homosexuality or you can even call it child prostitution or kiddie porn but it is what it is ABUSE.
    How do you account for the high incidence of female children being raped? Is it a conspiracy by The Gays to bring decent Christians into disrepute?
    Your obsession with same sex relationships is telling but hey look at it this way, at least they don’t involve any unwanted pregnancies…bright side!
    I am willing to believe that there are good, decent Catholics but I am equally sure that the author of this blog and his heinous acolytes are not among them.
    Catholicism is just a convenient platform for your bilious spew. A chance to get your rocks off controlling the bodies of women and fantasizing about what The Gays do under the covers.

    • I repeat, if everyone abided by Catholic moral teaching there would be none of these problems.

      I repeat, those who defend a woman’s right to murder her baby are the heirs of Adolf Hitler.

      • Wow, invoking Godwin’s law at such an early stage?
        I had an abortion at the age of 17, it was not a decision I reached easily but I do not regret it. The foetus hadn’t formed properly and I was highly likely to miscarry but at a much later stage where it would’ve been a lot more dangerous.

        • Louise,

          That was clearly a traumatic time for you, but do you realise how inaccurate scans can be? Let me also ask you this: if a child is involved in an accident and is left disabled – do the parents have the right to murder that child. It is always murder and always wrong.

          • At the time I was a christian and it was very hard but I do not feel any guilt about it now. I know it was the right decision for me and the, not yet fully formed, foetus.
            Do you know the best advice I received on this came from a local priest. He visited me in hospital as well.

            • Louise,

              This will no doubt sound harsh and cold – but that is exactly what you did!

              I hope, in time, you will reflect on the life you took and ask for forgiveness. God have mercy on the soul of that priest who encouraged this crime against humanity.

              • Thank you for your reply Whistleblower. I do disagree with you wholeheartedly though, I aborted a foetus that hadn’t actually formed, not a child. It was my body and my choice.
                I am not offended personally by any of the accusations thrown at me on here, but, for a young impressionable person that may cause severe emotional distress, surely you wouldn’t want to do that to anyone?

        • Louise,

          I notice that you do not regret your decision to abort, but many women do, and they suffer dreadfully as a result. They are haunted by what they did. You were 17, and it is possible, likely even, that you were swept along by others to make that decision – we don’t know the full story. It surprises me that you don’t regret your decision or wonder what that “foetus” would have been like if allowed to live to full natural term.

          In any case, I’m always sorry to hear of young girls of that age having abortions because in those bad old days when contraception was not available, girls didn’t hesitate to use the very best birth control of all – the “no” word. Then when Mr Right came along they would marry and the rest, as they say, is history.

          Everything now is the wrong way round – people have babies (those who make it through their first nine months of life) who later attend their wedding as page boys and bridesmaids (if they ever do marry) and the whole thing looks – and is – ridiculously upside down.

          Anyway, don’t get mad at us – we are ordinary Catholics who know the importance of doing what God wants us to do in this life, so that we may be happy with Him forever in the next so we are all about learning more about our Faith and not about trying to upset you or anyone else.

          God bless.

    • You, Sir or Madame or Other (to be politically correct-you’ve got to larf), are the bilious one- full of wind.

  29. I cannot believe the narrow minded warped comments made on here by people who obviously haven’t got an ounce of common sense. There are no greater sexual predators than those in the catholic church, even the Pope acknowledges that fact. I just wish all of them had been brought before the courts and sent to prison for a very long time.

    Editor: seems this Jewish businessman doesn’t agree with you – but then, he did the intelligent thing and decided to investigate the facts…

  30. I do hope the staunch catholics here are avoiding microsoft products, google, facebook etc. All companies supportive of equal rights. It would be hypocritical not too, right?

    • Elizabeth,

      Distraction is a common tactic of the immoral and ignorant. Don’t fudge the issue – do you accept it is a right that a woman can murder her child? If so, you are inhumane and little more than a devil.

      • I’m pro-choice if that’s what you mean. And a liberal jew so think the passgaes in the Torah calling on people to slaughter women and children and babies are not g-d inspired and pretty awfu

        But as we’re talking Torah, eaten any shellfish lately.Leviticus, right after the often-cited passage about homosexuality. You cant pick and choose what you follow. If you believe that pasrt of Leviticus, do you follow the rest?

        • Liberal Jew- say no more. They are worse than Liberal Catholics or Protestants. Even the new Chief Rabbi despises you lot. I look forward to the day when the Hasidic and Ultra-Orthodox take over you and your Synagogues.

          As for your shellfish comment, we don’t have to abide by the old law, because Jesus Christ fulfilled it with his new covenant, hence why we are not circumcised, but baptised to show our covenant with God.

          The Catholic Church is the true inheritor of the Old Jewish Religion and the Temple, whereas, modern Rabbinical Judaism is completely false and manmade, although divinely inspired. It cannot have the truth, only Catholicism does, because it was founded by Jesus Christ, who was God Incarnate. But of course in the Talmud, when you refer to Jesus as a bastard and His Holy Mother as a whore, you really are offending ‘your’ God. And you have the cheek to demand the Church should change the Good Friday liturgy, where it refers to Jews as ‘faithless. Go away and bore someone else. You can only come to the fullness of Faith with the Catholic Church.

    • Elizabeth,

      It’s not possible to boycott every company although we did close down the Catholic Truth Facebook page when the homosexual owners decided they’d censor out any “criticism” of homosexuality and we thought, “blow me, but we’re not going to be told what we can and cannot write about on our own Facebook page”

      We can only take a stand when we can, and Children In Need is one of those occasions when we can and we blankety blank DID !

  31. Comment removed.

    Editor: If you continue to post nasty comments, you will be consigned to the moderation queue until you get fed up and move on to a site somewhere, where you are allowed to post filth. Until then, read our About Us section and if you can’t comply, say “goodbye” – poetry thrown in at no extra charge…

  32. I think you are missing the point, folks. Much of the cash raised from Children in Need goes to DESTROY children i.e. those who don’t fit the bill: the handicapped, the unborn etc., not to help them. Also, there is an agenda in developing countries to coheres women into practices they don’t wish in return for “aid”.

    • Really, and your proof? CiN gave money to help build a drop in centre for families with disabled children near me. O, and the ‘H-word’ is rather ffensive to disabled people.

      • No-one denies that Children in Need does some good work. It also does some work that I and others here do not want to support. There are ways of supporting the causes we want to support while avoiding those we don’t approve of by giving to different charities, so that is what we choose to do.

        Nobody could possibly give to every cause; we all have to be selective about how we help others financially. There is another charity I avoid giving to because it once gave a grant to a group I knew to be very well off. I wish no harm to animals but I prefer to give to charities that help people. Others make different choices. I would not expect you to donate to the Society for the Propagation of the (Catholic) Faith because you don’t believe in the Catholic Faith. Please respect our right not to approve of abortion or to enable it by giving cash.

        Another reason I don’t give to Children In Need is because it gets a ridiculous amount of free BBC airtime, which no other organisation could even dream of.

      • the word bastard and whore are offensive but your Talmud uses them to refer to Our Lord and Our Lady. You Jews are good at this. You don’t like being killed yourselves, but when it comes to Palestinians, Arabs and unborn babies its OK? Many aborted babies are handicapped……so…explain. You don’t agree with offensive words to describe the disabled but you think its OK for a woman to kill them?

  33. Louise Hersee

    You are clearly navigating your way through this one life that you have been given by forming your own opinions of right v. wrong in conjunction with what you have read or what you have heard from like-minded people.
    In that respect, you are no better guided than a rudderless ship adrift on the sea.
    The opinions of most of those whom you are so ignorantly attacking are not based on the thoughts of mortals. They are based on divine truths revealed to the world by God Himself through His Son, Jesus Christ, and passed on down the ages, to those who would listen, by the successors to the Apostles, backed up by holy Scripture, by Tradition and by the Sacred Magisterium – of which you demonstrate you have little knowledge.
    You are out of your depth here and you owe it to yourself, while you still have time, to make amends for murdering your child, and to acquaint yourself with the teachings of the Traditional Catholic Church, and with what you need to do to save your soul.
    Now is as good a time as any to begin – there may not be a tomorrow.

    • Thank you so much for your concern but I am just fine. Since there is no such thing as god I have no wish to save something imaginary called a soul.

      Can I ask, out of interest, what is a soul? Who has one? Is it just humans?

        • Thank you for the link Editor. I have skimmed through it and have bookmarked it for future reference. I can find no definitive answer as to my previous question though. Is it just humans that possess a soul. The word ‘body’ is used a lot but not ‘human’.

      • Louise Hersee

        Shouting brave words in the dark might give you some imagined comfort just now, but how will it be for you at the hour of your death, when it will be too late to repent and promise improvement?

        Hear, learn and try to please God, or suffer the consequences for all eternity.

        • I think I’m willing to take the chance. Thank you so much for your concern though.
          Life is so much more fun when you realise there is/ are no god/gods. Education is a wonderful thing and I am so glad I embraced it at an early age so that I could rid myself of such tiresome activities such as talking to non-existent entities.

    • Leprechaun,

      I do not mean this with any disrespect but your comment
      “You are clearly navigating your way through this one life that you have been given by forming your own opinions of right v. wrong in conjunction with what you have read or what you have heard from like-minded people.
      In that respect, you are no better guided than a rudderless ship adrift on the sea.”

      Isn’t that how you have led your life? I was a christian until my early twenties when I began to challenge things and learnt to think for myself.

      • I must say that to be able to navigate through life by your own moral compass and be a good person without a great cosmic reward waiting at the end is surely a noble and praise worthy thing? Do we all really need to follow a text to be good? Maybe I am a dreamer…

        • Kinda but I think Louise is real. Oh hang on a minute. Are they allegorical now or actually real? (santa claus real anyway) Is this one of the bits I am supposed to believe? Could you get them to put asterixs by them or something?
          Sorry I just get confused by which bits are real and which are not without seeing evidence. I know we have been looking for a few thousand years but has any evidence turned up yet? I missed the news today and wanted to check….

        • Hi Ed
          So if we learnt to think for ourselves might that not put the church in peril? I mean we might end up doing using evidence and reason to make our decisions…

    • So you are willing to admit the element of doubt? I am pleased.
      The burden of proof is with the believers however. I have never come across any evidence to prove there is a god and therefore do not believe. If there were to be a scientific breakthrough tomorrow that proved its existence then I am also willing to change my mind.
      So glad that there is room for exploration on here as I was under the impression that the people that use this site were beyond that.

      • You should know that I was raised in an Atheist household, and was an atheist myself, but was introduced to Catholicism. I realised that it was true and the rest as they say…is history. So I am using my own intelligence and conscience, so I am not brainwashed as you may suppose.

  34. James,

    If, instead of indulging in empty sarcasm, you actually applied some intellectual rigour to the research you appear to have conducted into pagan religions, you would find that not one of them – not even one – claims to be “the true religion” or to be salvific: they are all happy to live alongside every other religion and use it for whatever purpose their human founder invented it.

    The only religious “leader” who claimed divinity was Christ, and who established a means of communicating divine life and power to people here on earth after His ascension into Heaven.

    So, that dispenses with your criticism of multifarious “gods” – there is only ONE God, and that is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that won’t bother the adherents of the non-~Christian religions one little bit since none of them claim anything remotely LIKE what the Catholic Church – i.e. Christianity – claims. If you think about it, by definition there can only be one true religion. They can’t all be true. You know it makes sense. A great deal more sense than spending your life pretending to be an atheist, all the while studying religion to death and dying for some of it at least to be true. BREAKING NEWS – in the Catholic Church, it’s ALL true! So sign up now, while there are still seats in the pews available…

    As for the rest – not having read Elizabeth’s post I haven’t a clue to which book you are referring, but guess it’s another swipe at the Bible from people who – with respect – do not understand the nature of the sacred writings and thus tend to get entirely the wrong end of the stick.

    As for getting a lawyer to launch an appeal when you meet God after death – nope. That’s why it is imperative that you chuck the barren atheism aside and get down to reading and praying about your future – in eternity.

    Luv ‘n stuff.. 🙂

    • Hi Ed,

      So all the wars fought between peoples of different religions were not because they were the one true faith? They all had gods- a word which is intrinsically linked to divinity I would have thought? Do you seriously think these people did not have the same amount of faith that you have in your god? Or that people who follow other faiths or even branches of your own faith are not equally convinced that they are right? What would you show them to convince them? I do not think your statement gets even close to dispensing with the argument about many gods and I would be hugely amused to see it used in discussion with Muslim, Shinto, Hindu, and Buddist religious leaders.
      So this divine means of communication. I am curious again. Did it not work too well because there have been numerous edits to the text and the acceptable books since then? If it were written by a god then do you think it might have been better to make it so that people could not get the wrong end of the stick? I mean why didn’t he get Shakespeare to write it?

      Well I am not pretending to be an atheist. I really am one. Fortunately you are not actually allowed to burn me for that anymore. Sorry to disappoint. There is nothing empty about it by the way. Its nice actually. I get sundays off which is good. Oh and Christmas day.
      Not been studying it to death but I am fairly well educated and so it is something you pick up along the way. Plus there is a strangely sad compulsion for people to shout from the rooftops about their imaginary friends in a desperate attempt to validate their delusions so its handy to know a bit about it. Plus there is of course the indoctrination that you insist on forcing down the throat of every poor child within the catchment area.
      Right off now. Its been fun but I know how utterly pointless it is to try and reason with the deluded.
      Oh and back to the original point- I am sure you are supposed to love everyone and not just those who agree with you so give your cash to kids who are suffering all over the world rather than looking down at them saying that they are not worthy.
      love n stuff. X

  35. I see, Editor, that we have a few new names with us this evening. It’s slightly disappointing to see that the debutants’ contributions have in large measure been distinguished by an incapacity for reasoned, informed discussion, to say nothing of the dim witted contempt for the elementary basics of morality, or the Natural Law, knowable by all. It’s probably best to look on this mini invasion of the ill-willed and ill-informed as another teaching moment.

    If opposing the abortion Nazis and their demonic bloodlust involves being called a few names, so be it. If standing between the most innocent and defenceless human beings and the abortion holocaust, the sacrifice to Moloch, is counter cultural in a world which is waging war against its Creator, well, then we should stand firm. If standing up for the Church’s teaching on the right ordering of sexual relations earns some foam flecked insult of being a “bigot”, then we better take it as a compliment. If the world hated its Saviour, what can we expect?

    Here’s a few words from the head of the UK’s biggest extermination machine for unborn children.

    ‘We either support women’s capacity to decide, or we don’t,’ she said. ‘You can’t be pro-choice except when you don’t like the choice, because that’s not pro-choice at all.’

    Funny how all those who mindlessly screech and chant the mantra of “choice” have already been born. Can we choose to drink and drive? Choose to steal? Choose to keep slaves? Choose to kill someone else because of their race? Choose to kill granny, when she becomes a financial “burden”?

    I think anybody who actually wants to drag themselves out of the abyss of ignorance concerning some of the matters raised here would be well advised to spend a week or two going through the very informative website Lifesite News. Here’s just one example.

    Crofter Lady, quite rightly referred to the anti-life agenda of the population controllers in developing countries (8.40pm). Here’s a hefty bit of reality concerning the abortion and contraception agenda.

        • I am glad you were raised by loving parents. Interesting that they are/ were also catholics. Were you given a religious education as well? Have you ever looked into other religions or do you just ‘know’ that this is the one for you?

          • Louise

            I am sure you will appreciate that having Catholic parents who take their God-given responsibilities seriously is very important, but that many find their way to the true Faith by the grace of God and the influence of others, without such an advantageous start. The names Chesterton, Knox, Newman, Ratisbonne, are familiar to you, are they not. Don’t underestimate your Guardian Angel, Louise, or the Hound of Heaven.

            I’m not sure what you mean exactly by “looked into other religions”. When you have the “pearl of great price” it strikes me as being a rather foolish endeavour to go looking for cheap imitations with which to trade it.

            Finally, Louise, I would make the point that religion is certainly not a question of ‘knowing’ that “this is the one for you”. We don’t decide autonomously on the “one”. Belief in the One, True God involves assent of the will, and intellectual submission to Divinely revealed Truth.

            • Thank you for your reply. Firstly, I am an atheist but that doesn’t discount me from being interested in religion as a sociological phenomenon. As I stated somewhere on this (rather large) thread, I do understand the emotional need for religion in people.

              I am interested as to what reasons people have in believing that their religion is the right one. I asked about your having looked into other religions as I am curious as to whether your mind is completely closed to the possibility of being wrong. It is something that I find very astonishing indeed.

              Do you believe that if you had been born into a Hindu family in rural India, you would be doubting your religion? Genuinely, can you see that your fervour to be right may stem from a fear of ‘what if I’m wrong?’. It is okay to question beliefs, I practise this regularly as I find it either educates me as to a different perspective or strengthens my original belief.

              If you ever have the chance then I highly recommend reading anything by the wonderful philosopher A C Grayling. If you are so certain in your faith then there is nothing to fear in reading about how others think.

                • Can I please ask what led you to catholicism? It seems we have both been on journeys, just in the opposite direction. You seem incredibly ardent in your views and this is very common in those that have joined a new religion in the same way that someone that gives up nicoteine finds smoking even more disgusting than those that have never smoked.

                  • Louise,

                    Please accept my apologies concerning my aggressive comments from earlier. As Ed pointed out, it was very unchristian of me.

                    I was baptised into the Church of England. At the time, my parents were agnostic, but were pressured by my father’s staunchly Anglican mother.

                    I was not brought up in a religious household, and I was an Atheist by my early teens, and quite an intolerant one.

                    However, whilst at high school, a Polish classroom assistant came to work with me (the Lord knows why-I wasn’t the only one working alone), and because she had a crucifix and a St Antony medallion around her neck, I sarcastically asked ‘are you a Catholic’? Of course she said yes. We had chats in other classes and she kept on bringing in religious materials and literature to mull over.

                    She said she would pray for me. I slowly but surely (it wasn’t a short or easy process) realised Catholicism was the truth. This was proved when for the first time in my life, I prayed to Our Divine Lord and actually meant it, and God blessed me and finally entered my life. Life is a jigsaw, and mine had a piece missing until that moment.

                    • Louise,

                      Humans exist for two reasons: to love and to be love- M. Teresa.

                      Your whole life is a miracle, just like that of the child born in Bethlehem. Your life and that of your children is a blessing, to be treasured always. We can see Jesus in all people.

                      I just hope that you realise how much you are loved by God.

              • Louise,

                To answer briefly your question about being born into a particular religion, I was born a Catholic, of two Catholic parents, but I became an RE teacher which meant I had to study the various world religions for the purpose of teaching about them. Far from making me question my own religion, my faith was strengthened. If faith and reason are to be reconciled, ONLY Catholicism makes sense.

    • Leo,

      Phew ! Am I glad to see you !

      “Funny how all those who mindlessly screech and chant the mantra of “choice” have already been born.”

      In the proverbial nutshell, Leo. Absolutely.

  36. Liz Hubbard made the following statement at 8.45 pm:

    “The rising STI numbers in the states are probably due to poor sex education. The right wing bigots that refuse to teach the younger generation of anything other than ‘their’ way.”

    You might care to read this, Liz.

    It includes the following:

    “Norman Wells of Family and Youth Concern said, “The answer does not lie in yet more sex education and contraceptive schemes, but in honestly telling young people the only sure way to avoid being infected with an STI is to keep sexual intimacy within the context of a lifelong, mutually faithful relationship with an uninfected partner.”

    At the same time, the government’s obsession with sex education has not halted the abortion rate among young girls. Earlier this month, a study revealed that Britain’s abortion rate in 2007 rose a shocking 21 percent among young mothers under the age of 14. Abortions for those under the age of 16 also rose ten percent.

    A recent study by the government-sponsored Sex Education Forum revealed that the school system in Britain is already saturated with sex education, while the FPA has called for the introduction of sex-ed to children as young as four.

    One-third of secondary schools directly offer condoms and other contraceptives to students through “sexual health clinics”. One in 20 have provided children with prescriptions for a variety of chemical contraceptives. Pregnancy tests and morning-after pills are being offered in schools to hundreds of thousands of children, some as young as 11, the Guardian reported last month. One in six of all secondary schools gave pupils access to the abortifacient morning-after pill.”

    What was that about right wing bigots? I think people need to start thinking about, and calling out the child corrupting, money grubbing, abortion ideologues.

    • As I stated I was talking about the US not Britain at that point.
      So its the promotion of safe sex and abortion that encourages promiscuity? Just because I had the options there to ensure I was safe when I decided to have sex did not encourage me to actually have sex but then my parents educated me and made sure I understood it could only ever be my choice as it was my body and that I understood the potential risks that were out there.
      There is one that automatically springs to mind when you say child corrupting and money grubbing but then you refuse to actually see any of the bad. The fact that the bible has been manipulated over the many hundreds of years and for Christianity to survive in a forever changing world then it too is also going to have to move forward as well and leave some of its archaic principles behind.
      I know none of you will ever change your views and that is your choice but sometimes you really should stop and think how your views are perceived and actually just how judgemental and nasty you can be for people of a religion that preaches peace, acceptance and love. I know I would rather live in sin and in my own warped belief’s of Christianity than actually sit and judge someone on their sexuality, sex life, contraception choices or gyneacological history.

      • Liz,

        As I stated I was talking about the US not Britain at that point.

        You cannot seriously believe that things are any better in the US?

        So its the promotion of safe sex and abortion that encourages promiscuity?

        Yes, because that is all part of the permissive culture which condones the kind of lifestyle you describe above: shacking up with a boyfriend, having children and cruising along as if all is well in your world, when it manifestly is not – not, that is, if you believe that God meant it when He said “Do not commit adultery” – all sexual activity outwith marriage breaks that commandment.

        Just because I had the options there to ensure I was safe when I decided to have sex did not encourage me to actually have sex but then my parents educated me and made sure I understood it could only ever be my choice as it was my body and that I understood the potential risks that were out there.

        Sounds like great “guidance” from your parents. NOT. Where on earth did this idea come from that it’s “your body”? If, as you claim, you think of yourself as a Christian and were presumably brought up as a Christian, did your parents not know that your body “is the temple of the Holy Spirit”? It’s on loan to you, to care for and treat as a holy place. Not doctor yourself up with pills and prepare yourself with bits of plastic in order to take your turn in the queue as the town’s good time girl – at least for that night…

        There is one that automatically springs to mind when you say child corrupting and money grubbing but then you refuse to actually see any of the bad. The fact that the bible has been manipulated over the many hundreds of years and for Christianity to survive in a forever changing world then it too is also going to have to move forward as well and leave some of its archaic principles behind.

        There are NO “archaic principles” in the Bible – Our Lord said that “not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away”… Just because we, with our finite minds, can’t understand everything right off, doesn’t meant it’s not true or is “archaic”. That attitude shows the same ignorance (with respect) as the man who, having dropped a precious antique vase belonging to a friend, who looked on in horror and pointed out that the vase was 2,000 years old, replied “that’s a relief – I’m glad it’s not new”!

        I know none of you will ever change your views and that is your choice but sometimes you really should stop and think how your views are perceived and actually just how judgemental and nasty you can be for people of a religion that preaches peace, acceptance and love. I know I would rather live in sin and in my own warped belief’s of Christianity than actually sit and judge someone on their sexuality, sex life, contraception choices or gynaecological history.

        Look, you are right, we are NOT going to change our beliefs and we are very used to people calling us names as a result. You do not see that it is YOU doing the judging and condemning, not us. We merely proclaim the natural law with regard to sexual behaviour and when you tell us about your lifestyle we explain, as we are duty bound to do, that you are displeasing God. That’s it. None of us has said you are going to Hell. You are certainly risking Hell, that is absolutely for sure, but we are forbidden to make that definitive judgment.

        God, however, Liz, will not be mocked. Those who decide that they know better than God about how to live, how to raise children, when He has provided a channel for the purpose of communicating a share in His own divine life to us (i.e. the Church) will not have an easy time at their judgment. Please do not mistake Christian love for sentimental love (check out the Crucifixion) and the other things on your list, peace and acceptance, are not the false peace that comes from acceptance of sin as if it is a good. Christ said “the peace that I shall give you is a peace that the world cannot give.” And far from accepting sin, He commanded that we “repent and believe”.

        It’s all so easy really, if only we could conquer our pride 🙂

      • Liz

        If you don’t realise that “the promotion of safe sex and abortion encourages promiscuity” you really are extremely naïve or stubbornly blind to what is going on in Society.

        So you were talking about STDs in the US, not Britain. Fine. Here’s the reality in the porn and vice saturated Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.

        Please don’t tell us we are talking about lack of sex education and contraception here.

  37. Louise, just for the record, what you have previously referred to as a ‘foetus’ or ‘non-person’ actually has fingerprints (i.e. a legal identity) at only 14 weeks after conception.

    As somebody once said…’the law is an ass’…

  38. Liz

    The next time you feel inclined to parade your ignorance and prejudice about those you term “right wing bigots”, just consider the following utterly disgusting example of the depraved depths of the moral sewer flooding what was Western Civilisation.

    Please make sure to read the following very revealing words:

    “The APA (American Psychiatric Association) said the unwelcome attention from conservative Christians helped them turn out a more precise and accurate guide.”

    Even when the stone is lifted, the propagandists for perversion persist in their demonic agenda. Can anyone explain what exactly is “more precise and accurate”, let alone acceptable, about substituting the word “interest” for “orientation”? I think anyone with a functioning brain can see where this is heading.

  39. Can I ask on what your doubts were based and how you came to be steadfast in your beliefs?

    I was brought up to believe in a god and attended church weekly as a child. Throughout my teens I believed that there had to be something, a creator of everything around us but I had no firm foundation to base this belief on, it was instinctive. During my early twenties I started to learn more about physics and gradually, I learnt that the world is indeed a wondrous place and the universe isn’t something that anyone completely comprehends but, it’s okay. Science is exciting, it’s not afraid to hold its hands up and admit when it’s wrong and it has led us to where we are today.
    My notion of a god became replaced with a love for science and learning.

    I believe that, as humans, we are naturally curious and want answers to explain everything. When we cannot find a reason we choose one of two options: either that it is something we do not understand YET or it is the working of a magical entity.
    This magical entity is such a fantastic answer to everything. If something good happens, we can praise it, if something bad happens then we can pray to it, if we do not understand something, we can pass off our ignorance as something we are not meant to know about.
    No one can question this entity as it is all powerful, and all knowing. It really is understandable that people should choose to take the path of least resistance and dismiss their own intellect by handing it over into the hands of a fantastical creature that, as long as you obey it, will give you comfort and something to lean on in troubling times.

    The great shame of this is that, in my conversing with people from all religions, followers are so stuck in this way of cyclical thinking and they all believe that their fantastical entity is the one true entity. Fine if this doesn’t affect anyone else but it does. Wars are created, people die and millions suffer because of religion. At last the tide is changing and, as we become more educated, we are slowly changing the meaning of religion. We don not allow stoning (in this country) because we recognise it is barbaric. We allow women to wear trousers, vote, work, because we recognise that women are equal.

    Religion is fading and I am really interested in what makes followers such as the people on this site, cling onto their faith.

    • I was brought up to believe in a god and attended church weekly as a child. Throughout my teens I believed that there had to be something, a creator of everything around us but I had no firm foundation to base this belief on, it was instinctive.

      Louise, that’s because God has implanted in human hearts something – call it a seed – that “connects” them to Him. I’ll put it no stronger than that at the moment. It IS “instinctive” because God made us to know, love and serve Him in this life so that we would be happy with him forever in the next, to quote the catechism. As with jokes, the old ones (catechisms) are the best 🙂

      During my early twenties I started to learn more about physics and gradually, I learnt that the world is indeed a wondrous place and the universe isn’t something that anyone completely comprehends but, it’s okay. Science is exciting, it’s not afraid to hold its hands up and admit when it’s wrong and it has led us to where we are today.

      Scientists have to hold up their hands and admit they’ve got it wrong – the nature of science is that its findings are based on the knowledge to hand at that point in time. It’s not infallible and it is constantly contradicting itself. That’s why the constant appeal to “peer review” is really meaningless in a sense. The “peer review” of Catholicism, on the other hand testifies to its enduring truth. The writings, for example, of the great saints of the Church testify to the positive effects of the Faith in their lives – right from the beginning, 2000 years ago. They are all independent witnesses to the truths of the Catholic religion. That’s some peer review!

      My notion of a god became replaced with a love for science and learning.

      That’s a pity, since the great scientists, people like Isaac Newton, for example, stated clearly that they were drawn to the exploration of the universe precisely for the purpose of getting to know more about God and giving glory to Him. Science is one of the great works of God – not an enemy.

      I believe that, as humans, we are naturally curious and want answers to explain everything. When we cannot find a reason we choose one of two options: either that it is something we do not understand YET or it is the working of a magical entity.

      That’s a whack of a simplification Louise. As I’ve already indicated, some of the greatest intellectuals and scientists were/are Catholics. Do you really think they set their intellects aside when thinking about their Faith?

      This magical entity is such a fantastic answer to everything. If something good happens, we can praise it, if something bad happens then we can pray to it, if we do not understand something, we can pass off our ignorance as something we are not meant to know about.
      No one can question this entity as it is all powerful, and all knowing. It really is understandable that people should choose to take the path of least resistance and dismiss their own intellect by handing it over into the hands of a fantastical creature that, as long as you obey it, will give you comfort and something to lean on in troubling times.

      Louise, again, quite a simplification, although I understand that way of thinking. The problem of evil and suffering in the world and in our personal lives is not an easy one to square with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God, but then if it were easy to square, we wouldn’t have to exercise Faith – but don’t let that response confirm your view that we “hand over our intellects…” There IS an answer to the evil and suffering in the world – there is an answer to everything, but it’s not the kind of answer an atheist wants to hear or accept. What an atheist wants to hear and will accept is an answer that is scientifically/empirically verifiable and that, I repeat, means there would be no exercise of faith involved.

      An analogy: if you tell me to go along to Glasgow Airport with a suitcase packed for sunnier climes and there will be a ticket waiting for me to go to any destination of my choice in the world and you respond to my doubts by scanning me a copy of the ticket by email, then there is no merit on my part. I believe what you say because you actually showed me the ticket. Doesn’t say much about you, that I require such proof. It’s a fact that the ticket exists and through reading about you, and therefore believe that your word is as good as your bond, and I choose to go along to the airport as described above, then I am exercising faith in you. You are demonstrably worthy of my confidence. I’m not sure this is a great analogy but it will have to do as people are shouting at me to make them tea ! In any case, I’m sure you’ll get my drift 🙂

      The great shame of this is that, in my conversing with people from all religions, followers are so stuck in this way of cyclical thinking and they all believe that their fantastical entity is the one true entity. Fine if this doesn’t affect anyone else but it does. Wars are created, people die and millions suffer because of religion.

      Louise, this old chestnut that religion causes wars really is an old chestnut. War, Christianity teaches, is a punishment for sin, and it’s human beings who create wars. Ask a scientist how long it will be before humans evolve to the point where they won’t pick fights with one another and declare wars? We want a level playing field here – can’t hold science up as Mr Perfect and blame religion for everything bad in the world. Not fair. I mean, do we keep pointing out that some of the most evil dictatorships in the world have been headed by proclaimed atheists like Stalin and Hitler. If Hitler had not renounced his Catholic Faith, how different the world would be looking back on history today…

      At last the tide is changing and, as we become more educated, we are slowly changing the meaning of religion. We do not allow stoning (in this country) because we recognise it is barbaric. We allow women to wear trousers, vote, work, because we recognise that women are equal.

      Louise, the above issues do not apply to Catholicism. The Catholic Church has always been in the forefront of education, not least in the under-developed countries where our missionaries were the first to build schools, hospitals etc. The Catholic Church has never condoned any such barbaric practices as stoning and not made any pronouncements on women wearing trousers etc. That’s a matter of personal preference. All the Church has ever done is preach that we dress and behave with modesty. The whole “equality of women” business is something that requires more in depth conversation, but as a woman myself, I’ve had serious reservations about the way that concept is interpreted in our society, and I don’t think it has benefited women at all to be made to feel they ought to be out in the workplace, and that somehow raising a family, being a “stay at home mum” is second class employment. A look around our societies at the out of control, undisciplined and unhappy youth, prone to drugs and drinking like never before, should make us re-think what we mean by “equality of women”.

      Religion is fading and I am really interested in what makes followers such as the people on this site, cling onto their faith.

      Louise, the Catholic Church will never fail. That is Christ’s promise: “Behold, I will be with you all days, to the end of the world.” False religions will indeed fade and fail, but not Christ’s Church. If you really want to know why we cling to our Catholic Faith (despite the awful diabolically inspired crisis in the Church today) I suggest you read the lives of the great saints and people like the Anglican convert, Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. For, if you think science is exciting, Louise, allow me to assure you that there is nothing more exciting than our own individual interior lives – our souls. And in that realm, no amount of scientific discovery can help.

      I know you claim not to believe, Louise, but I would ask you this, in good faith; to whisper a prayer to our Mother in Heaven, Our Lady, to help you to grow in understanding of it all. She will – I guarantee it.

    • ‘My notion of a god became replaced with a love for science and learning’.

      So, are you saying that religious people can’t be intelligent? I suggest you look up St Thomas Aquinas (Just War), Fr. Georges Lemaitre (Big Bang) and Fr. Gregor Mendel (genetics). Don’t make spurious claims.

      Also Religion is not fading.

  40. Isnt it strange when people are told the truth how it sends them over the edge ?….When people support to deadly so called charitys their money goes to slaughter precious preborn children ,so called contracept their Mum’s so there are no more little accidents and sterilize the poor souls .In many Countrys fecundity is a blessing and every new precious life is received ,loved and welcomed …therefore much of the so called help …showered on these unfortunate people by the rich West is totally unwanted …so called contraception has many dangers ,many females die or are left seriously ill for the rest of their lives due to it ,,and thats in the west .. so what of these poor people who cannot get or cannot afford medical help….?
    No so called charity that involves itself with any of the above should be called a charity because it is not…If you agree with pre born babes being mangled ,strangled or pickled right up to birth then I feel sad for you ,
    And if you want to donate your cash to such projects then I feel even sadder !……When you speak of paedophiles then think of all the under ags sex so called clinics encouraging sex activity and booking abortions for anyone from 11 years up isnt that paedophilia too

  41. You see we are a Nation that now has come to rely on euphenisms ….when abortionists refer to the pre born as fetuses ..Latin for young one ,,or products of conception ,uterine contents blobs of jelly …when have you ever heard someone say “I am making a cardigan for my products of conception,”…or I have a lovely pram for my fetus , or my uterine contents are due in a couple of months? Reproductive rights are really reproductive wrongs …..
    Condoms being made from Latex .have naturally occuring pores or holes …large enough fro sperms and bacterium to enter ….they split and tear and slip off yet they are heralded as the be all and end all for pregnancy and disease protection….
    i am not a Catholic ..though I do have a huge respect for the Church in speaking out and actively protecting PRE BORN CHILDREN fellow ,living Human beings within the Womb………..Abortion does nothing for anyone it takes the Babies lives ,and leaves the Family mambers totally bereft ..the umwilling Mum to be can suffer horrendously with both physical and mental damage and often the babies father so bereaved the relationship just cannot continue ..So all of you who have totally disgraced yourselves on this page attacking it like a pack of rabid Wolves all I can say is ..well done DEAR EDITOR for having the courage and brevity to speak out against the wrongs in this world

  42. Dear Editor (our glamorous beacon of light!), you HAVE been busy, eh! Your earlier comment about God implanting a seed within us that “connects” us to him, reminds me of the words of St. Augustine: You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you”.

    • Well said, Extra Omnes. I didn’t think of that at the time of posting, would you believe. Imagine that: St Augustine and myself came up with the same idea!

  43. N O T I C E . . .

    I’ve had an email from a reader in England, asking if I ought to delete some crude comments on this thread. I have to be honest and admit to not being able to read all the comments yet, because I’m inundated with various things this weekend. I’ve sort of read them “hit and miss” style and replied where possible.

    However, be warned: later tonight I’ll be doing two things: (1) check all comments and deleting all crudities (2) closing this thread. The Children in Need appeal is now over, and so the thread has served its purpose.

    PS – the email to which I refer, did not come from a Catholic, so don’t call calling us fuddy duddy puritans, folks!

      • Louise,

        I’ll need to think about that because, unfortunately, when we have atheists on our blog, as happens fairly often, some people, on both sides, get hot under the collar and it can mean an awful lot of monitoring for poor li’l ole me.

        I absolutely LOVE discussing the faith with anyone and everyone, and I especially enjoy the challenge of discussing with those who profess to be either agnostics or atheists. In my book, it’s elementary to seek to spread the Faith and if that includes taking the stick which some atheists bring to the debate, so be it but there are some who take a different view and who are, frankly, much harder work than all the Louise Hersees in the world of blogging put together 🙂

        So, let me think of what we might do – in the meantime, I hope you will keep reading our blog and feel free to comment on any of the topics from your own perspective.

        I’ve not chosen a fresh thread yet, so I will keep you in mind when I give the matter some serious thought later, although it’s a bit soon for another blog on this topic or something too closely related. For future reference, however, if you wish, you can take advantage of the standing offer to our bloggers which I refresh from time to time, to email me a short article for the blog. If it is suitable, I will happily publish it, explaining that you are the author. Maybe “An Atheist’s Top Ten Questions About Catholicism”? Something like that. Over to thee!

        • That is such a kind offer, thank you so much and what an excellent idea!
          I shall look into it and see what I can rustle up 😉

          I have a lot of catching up to do by the looks of my inbox and shall endeavour to answer any questions and respond to anyone that has addressed me but my son is a little poorly this evening (just a cough and cold but he’s only 2 and needs lots of cuddles) so I am unsure whether I shall have the spare time that I had yesterday evening. Rest assured I shall answer in due course though.

  44. What kind of conversation do you think you are having Louise ??…This is sheer and arrogant antagognisation …We cannot all agree with everything each other believes but show some respect ….This is a top quality website for those of us who believe in the RIGHT TO LIFE and who are willing to speak up and out for it We hate the the way So called contraception ,sterilization and abortion ruin peoples lives and health and offer free help to those wounded by abortion whether they realise it or not .Bitter hatred like yours and some other of the writers gushes out like a fountain therefore making any reasonable intelligent conversation impossible .

  45. Wendy, please don’t get upset, it is not my intention to cause you distress. As I have stated quite a few times throughout this thread, I am an atheist that is interested as to how people can reach these sets of values. I must admit to being cross when I arrived but I am doing my best to understand everyone and I haven’t (or certainly haven’t intended to) offend anyone.

    Of course no one agrees with each other on anything, that is life but it is one of the richest parts of life that makes for great discussion and debate.

    I am vehemently pro-choice and a strong feminist that doesn’t get offended, well, very nearly never!

    Variety is the spice of life and I love learning about people and their beliefs.

  46. Pro-‘choice’? Lucifer’s lexicon! Did anyone ever become pregnant from washing their car? Whose ‘choice’ was it to have sex? If pregnancy occurs as the result of the parents’ recklessness, is this the baby’s fault? There are no illegitimate babies, only illegitimate parents.

    So much guff gets talked about ‘human rights’. The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to be born. Without this, all other human rights are meaningless. Why should a baby be denied the right to be born, just because his (or her) parents don’t want to face the responsibilties of their own behaviour?

  47. Louise say you are “vehemently pro abortion “and a strong feminist …so how do you you feel about Sex Selective Abortions the majority on baby girls ?
    Also the great breast cancer link to abortion? Especially in the first three months of Gestation?
    And all the people left physically and mentally ill/damaged through abortion ?
    If you fight for” Wimmins wrongs” then I thought these tragedys would really concern you as deeply as they do us PRO LIFERS .
    there is so much ignorance surrounding abortion and when people really study and get to know the truth then hearts and minds dramatically change ,for the good

  48. Hang on all. I think Louise has given us a complete red herring. She said her baby was not fully formed. Was it a valid pregnancy? Was the baby alive? If so, it was not an Abortion, if the baby was no longer growing. The termination of a dead baby/miscarriage is not a abortion. That only applies to valid pregnancies. That is why the Church would permit an ectopic to be terminated, as the majority are not formed and for all intents and purposes ‘dead’ as it were.

    • I think this is a tad disrespectful now, I’m not sure what you mean by me posting a red herring but I have been completely honest.If you really want more details then I shall provide them.

      The foetus was alive but had not attached itself to the placenta properly. There was the question of it being ectopic and I had to undergo investigation for this but it shown not to be. Yes, I was told I would almost definitely miscarry within 2 weeks of this investigation but I did not and that is when I was advised to have an abortion as to continue with the pregnancy would’ve been medically dangerous for me. I am incredibly lucky to have my son now and had to undergo consultant led care throughout my pregnancy as it has left me with problems. I was 14 weeks pregnant when I had the abortion and have had 2 miscarriages between this and having my son. I shall not be having any more children and am grateful for contraception.

      • Louise Hersee,

        I feel a little sad that your son seems set to be an only child. May I take the liberty of suggesting that you pray to St Gerard Majella, the patron of mothers-to-be to see if he can obtain a miracle for you to allow you to have more children? And being on the pill sort of “permanently” really cannot be healthy.

        I hope you don’t mind me suggesting this, but I did feel a sadness on reading your post of 7.52pm.

    • Catholic Convert,

      I don’t think we ought to ask for personal details like this – Louise Hersee has been honest to say she had an abortion and we should stick to only discussing the evil of abortion, not her case which is now in the past. It would be different if she was to be considering having an abortion but I think that every that has to be said about abortion has been said now and she should be left alone on that score.

  49. Louise

    I thought it might be best of to answer your post of 1.09am here.

    I was more than half expecting you to raise the question about peoples’ minds being “completely closed to the possibility of being wrong.” It’s a fair point. Are we not heading back towards Pascal’s Wager here?

    Certainly, I would say that a closed mind indicates nothing so much as insecurity in belief. An open mind, on the other hand shouldn’t by any means preclude faith, decisiveness, and conviction, or be an excuse for indifference. At same stage we all have to make our minds up. As the Redemptorists used to preach:

    “We have one soul, one life to save it, and after that comes Heaven or Hell for all eternity.”

    I understand your point about questioning being a means of strengthening one’s original belief. Certainly belief has to be able to withstand scrutiny. Saint Augustine once made a similar point about engaging in debate (sorry I can’t give a citation).

    I see you mentioned A C Grayling. Unfortunately, I can’t recall any specifics on his theological thoughts, but the few times I have read or heard him in the mass media in recent years, have left me a lot less than impressed. Definitely a case of strengthening belief. Also, his slandering of Pope Benedict offered a rather revealing insight into the workings of his mind. I think he could do with a haircut too, but I suppose difference of opinion is legitimate on that subject.

    I might also add that at the pestering and “dare” of a septuagenarian Jesuit educated apostate, I once read Richard Dawkins book “The God Delusion”. I don’t want to give the wrong impression here, or encourage readers to rush out and buy it. What I will say is that it didn’t rise to being within a donkey’s roar of serious intellectual argument. If I could find it now, with all the red postit markers, I might give some evidence. Most definitely, this was a case of strengthening belief.

    Ditto with the late Christopher Hitchens’ book, “God is Not Great”, which gave me the impression of nothing so much as an inebriated rant. It was actually fascinatingly dreadful. And yet, I wish I had a tenner for every time I heard a so-called intelligent, educated, skeptic extol these screeds. Hitchens would now revise the title, no doubt.

    • Leo

      I think Christopher Hitchens is a good example of a closed mind. He actually left instructions that if he asked for a priest during his final stages of illness, to ignore him, it was down to his not being in his normal state of mind. That suggests to me a very closed mind.

      • Well said, Josephine.

        Thanks for that bit of info, although it’s really dreadful to consider anyone saying such a thing concerning the most important time of their life. His mind is well and truly open now.

  50. ‘Wow.
    How bigoted and prejudicial can a group of people be?
    Be very wary that none of you end up with an STI or become pregnant through rape, I would hate to think of the support you would/ wouldn’t receive.
    I am astonished that people are really spouting these views. Is this some kind of hideous parody of the dark side of religion?’

    That was your original post, so please do not lecture me or anyone else about disrespect. If you and your likeminded friends (I know you don’t know her) did not come on here in the first place using aggressive language to describe us, then maybe you would not have got a similar response.

    This is what the Catholic Catechism says about Abortion-


    2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

    Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
    My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

    2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

    You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
    God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

    2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

    2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

    “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”80

    “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”81

    2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

    Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”82

    2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”83

    “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”84

    “Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”which are unique and unrepeatable’.

    You were never a Catholic, and you really do have a poor understanding of our religion.

    You are obviously seeking answers- I think, or else why did you come on here? But, if you just came to wind us up then don’t bother.


      Okay, my anger at the, what I still believe to be, prejudicial (as in it affects the way you think about and treat people) and bigoted (as in there seems to be no room for reflection, it is an obstinate, stubborn way of thinking, dogmatic I believe) views may have got the better of me at my first reading. I truly took a sharp intake of breath at the dismissive and somewhat vitriolic way people were discussing groups of people (homosexuals, women that choose to have abortions). I wrote my honest opinion.
      I am still coming to terms with the fact that posters on here hold this way of thinking but I am not trying to change your minds, I am trying to understand from where these views come and then decide for myself what implications they may have for the wider world.

      • Louise,

        That is a most mature and thoughtful post. You’re obviously a kind person. So, believe it or not, is Catholic Convert – he’s just a bit over-zealous (goodness knows what he will be like when he’s actually been received into the Church!) In any event, be assured he has a heart of gold (and probably teeth to match!)

        Thank you for your patience with us all.

        Goodnight and God bless.

  51. Louise

    I think it is fair to say that Atheism is a belief system. I think you might have mentioned earlier about the onus being on the believer to defend the belief. Certainly past efforts to get an answer from visiting atheists on this blog about the elementary questions of where matter comes from, or free will have met with eloquent silence. During one radio interview that I can recall, Richard Dawkins himself had no explanation. Similarly, the question of a moral code poses an insurmountable challenge for atheists. Who and what is the basis for the moral law, rapidly shrinking as the universal lowest common denominator might be? Catholics don’t have to give more than a split second’s thought to that one. Do atheists accept that morality can never change? If not, why? And I don’t think that enlightened self-interest and co-operation amount to much of an argument for atheists to make. Many atheists feel very much at home with the language of moral outrage when it comes to vilification of the Church.

    Law implies a lawgiver. A command always implies a superior who issues that command. And Who can this Final, Absolute, Supreme Authority be, save God, the Original Source of all morality? Conscience is merely His voice.

    The issue of conscience has received plenty of airing in recent weeks. Cardinal John Henry Newman puts the argument from conscience well. He wrote:

    “If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened, at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose claims upon us we fear. If, on doing wrong, we feel the same tearful, broken-hearted sorrow which over-whelms us on hurting a mother; if, in doing right, we enjoy the same sunny serenity of mind, the same soothing, satisfactory delight which follows on our receiving praise from a father, we certainly have within us the image of some Person to whom our love and veneration look, in whose smile we find our happiness, for who we yearn, towards whom we direct our pleadings, in us are such as require for their exciting cause an Intelligent Being. Thus the phenomena of conscience avail to impress the imagination with a picture of Supreme Governor, a Judge Holy, Just Powerful, All-Seeing Retributive” (Grammar of Assent, 109).

    Would you accept, Louise that rejection of a belief in a Creator who created the world ex nihilo, must raise another extreme challenge for atheists. The supreme importance of the myth of evolution, which was discussed at length on this blog not long ago, becomes very obvious. Once the Uncaused First Cause is denied and rejected, the gap must be plugged, however desperately. Hence we have the myth of evolution as the paper bag cornerstone of the atheistic philosophy of so many.

    The Church holds and teaches that God, the Beginning and End of all things, can certainly be known from created things by the natural light of reason; “for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” – Romans i. 20

    Just think, Louise, of the words of G K Chesterton:

    “To an atheist, the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece ever constructed by nobody.”

    Apart from the Moral Argument and First Cause arguments, there are general arguments such as those from an intelligently designed, extremely finely balanced natural world, and that of the innate human desire for infinite joy and true happiness. Remember, Louise the words of Saint Augustine:

    You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You.”

    I’m mindful of the length of this post, but I’ll finish by making brief mention, for the moment possibly, of some of the more convincing arguments for holding the True Catholic Faith. I’m sure others here will be well able to add to these words.

    Firstly, we have the Faith’s complete coherence and accordance with logic and reason. I would direct any catcallers to the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas and his monument to the theology of reason, the Summa Theologica. Reading the works of converts such as Newman, Ronald Knox and G. K. Chesterton should also prove of huge benefit.

    The lives of the Saints, many of whom started rather badly, have offered a very obvious and inspiring testimony of the Faith since the times of the Roman persecutions.

    Miracles represent just one more challenge to those who reject God. The selection is vast. The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, no doubt converted many if not all of the skeptics amongst the 70,000 witnesses. No skeptic has, to my knowledge, explained the miracle cures at Lourdes, or explained the Turin Shroud’s origins.

    Most importantly, we have the evidence of the greatest miracle of all history, the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Since day one, there have been powers with very definite vested interests in disproving the Resurrection and the Divinity of Our Lord.

    If Our Lord was not God, but nothing more than some charismatic, wise, vagrant preacher, the Saints and Martyrs have been the biggest fools in history. I don’t know how it is possible to explain two millennia of Church teaching and history if the Church is not the work of the Redeemer of Mankind, God made Man.

    Any atheists warming up for a bit of moral outrage, might care to pause on the words of Hilaire Belloc:

    “Any purely human institution run by such a group of knaves, fools, and cutthroats wouldn’t have lasted a fortnight.”

  52. Louise

    I appreciate that you have a lot on your plate on this thread, but I have to reply to your words in your post of 12.11pm.

    “Science is exciting, it’s not afraid to hold its hands up and admit when it’s wrong and it has led us to where we are today.

    “My notion of a god became replaced with a love for science and learning.”

    With respect and good will, Louise, I would say that you are sadly misguided if you think that the Faith and Science are mutually exclusive, or at loggerheads.

    Many materialist, rationalist, humanist, skeptics appear oblivious to the fact that Western Civilisation was built by the Church. Anyone who denies that is aggressively cutting off the bough that that civilisation sits on. We could discuss Christian charity and care for the sick and needy, the development of agriculture, education, architecture, art, music, law, exploration, economics and of course science. The father of modern genetics was of course, Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian Friar.

    The truth is that modern science is built on the foundations put together by Catholic Churchmen. Unlike false religions, the Church taught that the world was the work of a supremely reasonable Person, and was therefore endowed with lawfulness and purpose, evident in the laws of nature.

    Because God “ordered all things by measure, number, weight” (Wisdom 11:21), Catholic scientists before the time of the so-called Enlightenment believed in the rationality of scientific experimentation and quantitative enquiry, as a means of understanding the universe and nature. The Church provided the philosophical underpinning for science. And no amount of atheistic huffing and puffing is going to change that fact.

    There appears to be a great deal of humanist ignorance or amnesia on the subject of the history of science. I wonder why. How many atheists know anything about Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, or Saint Albert the Great, or Father Nicolaus Steno who was credited with setting down most of the principles of modern geology.

    Do you know, Louise about the contribution of the Jesuits to science. When Charles Bossut, one of the first historians of mathematics, compiled a list of the most eminent mathematicians from 900 BC to 1800 AD, 16 of the 303 names were of Jesuits. Thirty five craters on the moon are named for Jesuit scientists and mathematicians. The Jesuits were described as “the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century” by J L Heibron in his study of Modern Physics. The order were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as India and China.

    How many atheists have heard of Father Giambattista Riccioli, the first person to determine the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body? In the seventeenth century, he produced a massive encyclopaedia of astronomy. He also calculated the constant of gravity, by developing an accurate one-second pendulum.

    How about his contempory, Father Francesco Grimaldi, who produced a detailed diagram depicting the features of the moon, and who discovered the diffraction of light.

    Or Father Roger Boscovich, one of the great intellectual figures of all ages. A modern scholar says that Father Boscovich gave “the first coherent description of an atomic theory” while a recent historian of science calls him “the true creator of fundamental atomic physics as we understand it.”

    How many humanists are willing to recognise Father Athanasius Kircher, described as “a giant among seventeenth-century scholars”, or Father Nicolas Zucchi, the inventor of the reflecting telescope.

    The fact remains, as J.L. Heibron of the University of California-Berkeley points out, that “the Roman Catholic Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, that any other, and, probably, all other, institutions.”

    I might finish, Louise with a good natured bit of advise to read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilisation”, by Thomas Woods. The examples of the Church’s contribution to science are taken from that excellent work.

    • Thank you for taking the time to address me in such a thoughtful way.

      I agree, it is a lot to think about and at the moment I am somewhat busy with my son so I shall keep this brief and reply when I have had time to properly reflect on your posts.

      I have been reading a very interesting article about Pope Francis and have warmed to him greatly. He seems to be genuine in his attempt to live the life of a simple, kind, thoughtful and frugal man. All these things are most welcome to my ears. I am a novice to the catholic church (I think that may be clear 😉 )but I am finding it fascinating to learn more about the tenets on which it was built. It is an incredibly powerful organisation and it would appear that Pope Francis is not afraid of upsetting some of the powers that be. Again, this is appealing to me as an atheist, I applaud his courage.

      Regarding the history of the connection between the church and science, I agree, the link is both strong and undeniable. However, when you look at the history of rates of literacy and general education it would seem only natural that some of the greatest minds were part of the church as they held the educational purse strings, so to speak.

      There is a lot to be said about evolution and an atheistic belief system and I shall return to those points another time!

      I have always been interested in all religions, from a sociological aspect, I am the one that invites the Jehovah witnesses in for tea and a chat 🙂

      In the meantime, I wish you all a pleasant evening and bid you goodnight.

  53. Louise and Leo,

    Since I can see that you two have unfinished business here, I won’t close this thread tonight, after all. Hope word doesn’t get around – don’t want folk thinking I’m an old softie after all 🙂

  54. This has been a very interesting thread to read. I would like to explore a few areas in more depth to satisfy my curiosity, I hope that is permissible…

    1) I understand that Catholics don’t like people ‘justifying’ abortion with the fact that the fetus has tested positive to be handicapped, or that the mother’s life is endangered by continuing the pregnancy. Can anyone tell me why it is acceptable to justify rape of minors as ‘a homosexual problem’ rather than pedophilia? Why is it wrong for one group and not another?

    2). Why would it be better for a child to be born and the mother die than abort the child and save the mother (especially if she already has children that rely on her). I truly struggle with this concept. Why is the potential child’s life worth more than the mother’s?

    3) If children are so important that their mother should die to bring them into this world, why is it okay for a trusted older person to abuse them? Why isn’t their life as sacred once they
    are older?

    4) Leading on from 3: if the life of a fetus is so sacred as to discount the life of its’ mother during a troubled pregnancy, at which point in the fetus’s future life does the value of its life decrease to the point where it may be deemed less worth saving than a fetus involved in a troubled birth?

    5) I interpret the logic to boycott the charity in question as follows: By supporting others in the acts of abortion and usage of birth control, this charity is in violation of morality, and should be boycotted. Assuming my interpretation is correct, why should we not also boycott the Catholic church, as an organization that has supported the molestation and rape of minors, also a violation of morality?

  55. Layla…hold on ……once fertilization has taken place then it is a unique new life ,you were you from the minute when your Mums egg met with your Dads only needed time ,nourishment and after your birth Oxygen to get you to who you are today!
    Life in the wombwasonce deemed the most sacred ,safe place to be ..sadly it all changed with the 1967 Abortion Act once this heinous Pandoras Box was opened so all the other reproductive wrongs joined it over the years …… even David Steel who drove this bill through Parliament admits there are way too many Abortions ……it has turned Gynaecology on its head and General Nursing has been made a nonsense how can a Dr be desperatly trying to save a little premature baby of say 22 weeks thats wanted …yet that day he may be deliberatly killing by abortion a few over that Gestational age ,believe me it is very horrific indeed to go outside abortion mills and see Ladies going in with very large tummies !
    Also please consider your Handicapped argument are you saying handicapped babies should not be born? As we speak a very dear friend of mine lays dying they have multiple handicaps that person has achieved so much in life and has done so much for others

  56. sorry I have had to continue on a new sheet as my previous one kept jumping about .
    Yes they have experienced great obstacles but with their razor sharp brain they overcome them and enriched the lives of hundreds of people as well as travelling the World this person was a very ardent Athiest and pro abortionist who later become one of the leading Pro lifers and a very devout Catholic…The preborn Handicapped baby and the Black and Mixed race baby are those at most danger within the Mums womb….rascism is rife within the world of the Abortionist and often great pressure is exerted on Mums to be pregnant with a child of a different race…in fact it was due to this that 43 years ago I started the huge battle to fight Abortion as mine were of mixed race and I witnessed what my self and friends in mixed relationships went through.As you will have read I am not a Catholic but I firmly believe life is very Sacred ,and is a wonderful thing to have and that every little person conceived should have the right to be born …Abortion is not the safe miracle cure all your problems operation it is made out to be it is bloody ,violent ,cruel negative and very injurous to both body and mind….Please look at what happens to that baby during an abortion also go to
    http://WWW.BLACKGENOCIDE.COM .And please remember it is because pro life people care equally for both Mum and Baby they devote their lives to the cause

  57. My experience of where CIN money went: prepare to e shocked………. if you want scandal.

    My now 10 year didn’t develop typically, at 5 he could not speak, and we were falling through holes in the system. A charity used CIN money to get him therapy -he still has autism but he talks and communicate. I’ve CIN say “thank you, so much.”

    • Claire Scarlet Honey Peach 🙂

      Nobody’s saying that Children in Need won’t do some good with the money they raise. Nobody, no organisation, is all bad.

      However, if you were to ask your butcher for a pound of beef, and he mentioned that there was just a chance that there was a little cyanide in there, just a speck… Would you still buy it? Or would you wish to absolutely protect your lovely little boy from even the slightest risk to his heath? Of course you would. And it’s that principle which should guide us when considering Charities to support.

      The fact that CIN have helped some children with autism (laudable big time) does not negate the fact that they are also helping doctor young girls with contraceptives and facilitating abortions thereby possibly ruining an awful lot of lives, not to mention leading young people into a destructive and sinful lifestyle.

  58. I’m so shocked. At times like these, when I read articles like this, I am drawn to think about Jesus and what he would say, how he would judge this “sinful” charity. I think of the saviour dying on the cross and how ashamed he would feel that “christians” were being like this in his name. Would Jesus have abandoned charity to serve his own end? Would Jesus have forced a raped girl to carry a baby? What was Jesus’ message really? Was it to judge and show prejudice or to treat others with kindness? Seems to me that often people are too concerned with judging and not helping. Shame on you. You use Jesus to shame and persecute. I will tell you what Jesus would have done he would have encouraged people to give to charity, he would have been on the side of CIN.

    • Kellie-Jay Keen,

      First of all, the “gentle Jesus” of popular imagination, is just that: imaginary. Christ was scathing in his dealings with those who lead others into sin – if you recall, He took a corded whip and drove those scandal-mongers out of the Temple. And while He readily accepted the evident sorrow for his sins revealed by the Good Thief on the cross, and promised him Paradise that very day, He gave no such assurance to the apparently unrepentant thief hanging alongside Him. “Charity” groups who are using their money to spread promiscuity and facilitate abortions for young girls would quite definitely be candidates for some very harsh words, to say the least, were Our Lord walking the earth today. “Gentle Jesus”? You gotta be kidding. When Christ said: “Suffer the little children…” He added “to come unto ME.” That is, we are to teach children about His great sacrifice on the Cross, about His one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church, about the urgency of doing God’s will so that they will attain Heaven. Fitting them up with contraceptives and abortions, that is, enabling them to break the Commandments, is not remotely “kind”. It is, in fact, to peddle spiritual death. The “gentle Jesus” message is a mark of a false prophet. You won’t find any here at Catholic Truth.

      Questions such as “Would Jesus have forced a raped girl to carry a baby?” are way wide of the mark, to say the least. Christ forces no-one to do the right thing. That’s why we were created with free will: not so we could decide to do good or evil, as popularly believed, but so that we would freely choose the good. We would freely choose to do the right thing. There would be no merit in our goodness if it were programmed into us as if we were robots, unable to think and act freely. So, no, Jesus would not have forced a raped girl to have a baby. However, since He’s given His own authority to His Church to teach and interpret the Sacred Scriptures and divine moral law – to the Church which He established for the purpose of continuing His Presence and Power on earth – He will be asking us all questions at our Judgment about why we disobeyed His laws, why we refused to accept the divinely bequeathed authority of His Church and why, if that raped girl aborts her baby, she did not believe His teaching that because one evil has been perpetrated, that doesn’t mean we can perpetrate a second evil in revenge. That’s why the UK soldier who shot and killed the injured Taliban prisoner has been convicted of murder. Not because the Taliban is not an evil outfit and goodness knows what bad things that prisoner had done, but because “an eye for an eye” is not God’s will. Just because that baby’s father did an evil thing by raping the girl, doesn’t mean the baby should be murdered.

      Your comment is full of emotion, Kellie-Jay Keen and I hope you re-think your views, because Jesus was NOT all about “kindness” – Jesus was all about saving us from Hell. And that sometimes requires harsh words, “tough love” as our American cousins say.

      And our PC society applies this principle when it suits: any teacher will tell you that schools absolutely and categorically tell pupils not to take drugs, not to smoke. There’s none of this “it’s your choice” (partly – perhaps largely – because the Government wants to save money on the health care of drug addicts and smokers.) But when it comes to anything to do with sexual behaviour – suddenly, it’s “your choice”. They will say, in defence of this contradiction – with a straight face – that young people can’t be lectured, they will only be all the more determined to have a sexual relationship if we say “don’t… wait till marriage” without it dawning on them that, therefore, to lecture them about drug-taking and smoking must surely result in the same unintended consequence (more drug-taking and smoking!) Yet the “no drugs/smoking” message continues to be driven home. Honestly. Drives me nuts. It’s enough to make you take to the drink 🙂

      Kellie-Jay Keen, Jesus’s message about saving our souls is far more important than some passing pseudo kindness, which may make us more popular in the short term, but will take us to Hell in the end. Jesus said: “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments” – clear as a bell. You can’t talk about Christ as if He were no more than a nice young man from Nazareth who cured people and told nice stories to help us be better people. He is God the Son, who walked this earth 2000 years ago, suffered unimaginably and then died on the Cross, not to make us all “kinder people” but to make us all saints – to get us to heaven. Of course we should be kind when we possibly can, and that would be a natural outcome of our efforts to become holy, but it is not “kind” to encourage people to do wrong; to give money to groups when that money is being used to encourage young people to engage in sexual activity, have abortions etc. – in other words: to break the commandments. That, as I’ve said, is the road to Hell.

  59. Louise

    You wrote last evening of “the history of rates of literacy and general education” and that “it would seem only natural that some of the greatest minds were part of the church as they held the educational purse strings, so to speak.”

    I would claim that those words are further evidence in the Church’s favour, and help make my point. Some of the greatest minds in medieval times were very much part of the Church. Clearly the Church encouraged great minds, precisely because philosophy and science were so much in accord with Catholic theology. That’s a matter of historical fact, regardless of so-called “Enlightenment” revisionism. The University was a uniquely 12th century Catholic invention.

    Literacy in general, was clearly preserved and taught, in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire, by the Church, no doubt for the purposes of theological study, religious education and liturgy. I doubt literacy rates were comparable outside Christendom.

    As for purse strings, Louise, you appear to accept that the Church considered science and education as noble causes to be supported. It is not hard to think of non-Christian parts of the world, not lacking in wealth, where science and education were and are, far from a priority. I would suggest that comes largely, if not completely, from absence of Catholic theology.

    Subsequent Western scientific achievements were the culmination of the systematic groundwork laid by medieval Catholic theologians. The ascent of Science is due to deeply religious Catholic scholars.

    Science flourished in Christendom, and not elsewhere, at least not until recent times. Only in Christendom did alchemy develop into chemistry. Ditto in the case of astrology developing into astronomy. The answer has to do with the Church’s concept of God as being the absolute epitome of reason. Science developed in Christendom because it was believed that Creation was subject to, ordered, and governed by Divinely instituted rules.

    Alfred North Whitehead, co-author with Bertrand Russell (of all people) of the landmark Principia Mathematica (1910-13) explained in one of his Lowell Lectures at Harvard in 1925 that science arose in Christendom because of the widespread “faith in the possibility of science…derivative from medieval theology.” He explained that:

    “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement was the inexpugnable belief that…there is a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?…It must come from medieval insistence on the rationality of God… Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.”

    Most importantly, Whitehead also explained that the false gods found in the religions of Asia, are too impersonal or too irrational to have sustained science. Any particular “occurrence might be due to the fiat of an irrational despot” god, or might be produced by “some impersonal, inscrutable origin of things. There is not the same confidence as in the intelligible rationality of a personal being.”

    I hope, Louise that the above gives you a few points to consider. It think it also links back to an earlier question of yours about being so certain about the Catholic Faith being the one true, religion.

  60. Layla

    You clearly have no grasp of Catholic teaching if you believe that “the life of a fetus is so sacred as to discount the life of its mother during a troubled pregnancy”. You need to become better informed.

    “Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child.”
    -Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, November 26, 1951

    “Deliberately We have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions – granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”
    – ibid

    So, Layla, when did you and I, and each person reading this, come to possess the inalienable right to life?

    I’m sure Wendy is familiar with the following words of a great protector of the unborn, the late Father Paul Marx. You might consider, Layla, giving them a bit of thought.

    “Abortionists appear unimpressed by the argument that, since human life must surely begin somewhere between conception and birth, he who would snuff it out must bear the burden of proof. Are their rationalizations and evasions no more than evidences of the compounded philosophical confusion of an affluent society enslaved in hedonism? Or does the truth go deeper and blacker than that? Perhaps what they are afraid to face is not the humanity of the unborn child but their own willingness to become utilitarian killers of their own kind.” – The Death Peddlers, pp 155 and 156.

  61. Layla

    You posed the question:

    “Can anyone tell me why it is acceptable to justify rape of minors as ‘a homosexual problem’ rather than pedophilia?”

    I take it from that comment that you would not accept that the repulsive depravities of a small minority of priests, the “filth” in the Church, as described by Pope Benedict, is a manifestation of pederasty, and therefore a homosexual problem. I take it that you are unaware of the John Jay Report into the clerical abuse of minors in the US.

    I take it that you are unaware of the massive infiltration of homosexuals into seminaries over the last fifty years. You should read Goodbye! Good Men, by Michael Rose.

    I take it that you are unaware of the fact that some of the most notorious episcopal “concealers” over the last five decades have been out and out liberals who have actively attacked Catholic faith and doctrine. One of them, in the US, paid a six figure amount to buy the silence of his homosexual “lover”.

    I take it that you are unaware of the following two articles. I suggest that you will find them very informative.

  62. Layla

    I hope you will agree that the depravities of pederasty and paedophilia are a cancer in Society that absolutely has to be eradicated. I trust you will also agree that the following links should be very widely read. It’s just a hunch, but I suspect that these stories might have been subjects of a bit of covering-up.

  63. Well done to Patricia for holding the reins so well on this very volatile debate …I truly applaud your humility and compassion .
    What I would say to the antagonists is this ,,,Do you think it is only Catholic Priests who abuse children ? I am constantly reading of so called men of the cloth do it from every Denomination involved …who ever they are they should be given maximum punishment for their crimes against little innocents .
    Sadly our Laws are very soft and relaxed hence plane loads of perverted people leave for the Far East and Africa to do just that abuse children .
    Also if you are happy to donate to so called Charitys that encourage infanticide ,sexualisation of tiny tots,rendering people sterile ,and handing out Human Pesticides to women who are not able to access medical care when the manifold side effects kick in then good luck to you .Beware we now have a Proffessor only yesterday calling for the age of consent to be lowered yet again to 15 years …It has been the Mantra of the Anti -Life brigade to call for more sex education which is pornagraphy very thinly disguised which the Government pumps Billions of pounds into to hand out ms and Pills like sweeties to children from the age of 11..and to encourage them to have abortions without their Parents knowledge…sif htis isnt first degree child abuse then

  64. Sorry it started jumping again
    C/d then I dont know what is .
    These pernicious so called clinics ruin more lives than they help…with their its ok to have sex with who you want ,where you want ,when you want but always have a condom ready mention of love ,respect ,caring ….or even knowing who you are being intimate with ..when the inevitable happens and a baby is conceived the problem is solved by an abortion after that the girl will be fitted with an IUD or the implant pouring out noxious chemicals within her body and probably an early abortion every month she may forget to take the kill Pill and shes already had 18 doses of the morning after pill……in stark reality this child could be just 14 with all this trauma on her body and Reproductive system…when shes older and want a baby and she cannot get pregnant she turns to I V F ….Oh brave New World .What a Reproductive nightmare