Glasgow Pride: Priest Under Fire For Prayer of Reparation – Bravo, Father! 

 Below, report in Evening Times, dated 17 July, 2018, with Catholic Truth editorial comment in blue, italicised throughout. 

Fr Mark Morris

A CATHOLIC chaplain of a Glasgow university has held a service to atone for the “gross offence” of Pride Glasgow.
Ed: well, thanks be to God that there was at least one act of reparation for this “pride in our sin” parade through our city, in flat contradiction to the city motto which is “Let Glasgow flourish by the preaching of Thy word and the praising of Thy name.”

Father Mark Morris, of Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church, last night invited parishioners to a rosary of reparation.
Ed: bravo, Father!

According the Balornock church’s website, the service was a “Rosary of reparation for the gross offence to God which is Pride Glasgow.”
Ed: bravo, Father!

Saturday’s Pride march was led by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who called the event “celebrating and reaffirming the values of tolerance, diversity, equality, love and respect.”
Ed: there should never be any celebration and reaffirming of sin, especially in a city bearing a motto of dedication to  Christ: “Let Glasgow flourish by the preaching of Thy word and the praising of Thy name.”

But last night Father Morris, who is the Catholic chaplain of Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), held a service offering decades of the Rosary, Litany and Benediction in reparation for the LGBTQI+ event.
Edthus providing an opportunity for all concerned to affirm their stated devotion to the “values of tolerance, diversity, blah blah…”

Jordan Daly, Co-Founder of Time for Inclusive Education (TIE), which campaigns for inclusive education in schools, said it was “sad and disappointing” to see Father Morris’s “condemnation” of the event.
Ed: why on earth is it “sad and disappointing” to see a priest upholding Catholic moral teaching?  Would you prefer that he lacked integrity and praised what any Catholic worthy of the name knows to be a grave offence against God – objectively, a sin deadly to the soul? I thought the whole idea was that in our “inclusive” society we can “celebrate” and “tolerate” ALL views, beliefs blah blah?  Yeah, right. 

He said: “The Pride parade was, as always, a vibrant and colourful display of diversity, acceptance, and inclusivity.
Ed:  not in my experience.  These “pride” parades comprise a procession of half-naked people, cavorting and being sexually provocative in their behaviour. Not nice, to put it mildly. If that’s “a display of diversity blah blah” you can keep it.   

“The ethos of the parade is equality and love, so it is sad and disappointing to see that Father Morris has countered those fundamental values by holding this service and allowing a narrative of exclusion and condemnation to enter the mainstream as a result.”
Ed:  superficial junk-think. These terms are flung around without any definitions being offered.  Equal to whom?  What KIND of “love”?  The LGBT etc agenda is dominating the conversation and we are not allowed to ask these questions. Let anyone call this sin a sin, and pray in reparation, as Fr Morris has done (to his eternal credit), and he is accused of conducting a “narrative of exclusion and condemnation”.  From junk-think to  junk-speak.

Father Morris celebrates Mass on Thursdays in the Faith and Belief Centre in the university’s William Harley Building, and hears confession.
A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Glasgow said: “This was a private parish devotion unrelated to Father Morris’s role as chaplain.”
Ed what a dereliction of duty.  How DARE this “spokesman” for the Catholic Church in Glasgow, whoever he is, fail to point out that Father is doing no more than his duty as a Catholic priest in praying for and making reparation for serious sin. And, furthermore, that he is always a priest, whether in his parish or in a university or any other place where he is appointed to BE a priest for the people in that place.  Just WHO is this spokesman?  Ronnie Convery?  Doesn’t he know that the Archbishop of Glasgow, when he was appointed to the Diocese of Paisley, condemned the LGBT etc lobby outright and urged us all to be prepared to go to prison rather than remain silent or support this evil?  Has Mr Convery forgotten this wee detail? How typically convenient. 

A spokesman for the university said GCU is fully inclusive.
Ed: well, what’s the problem?  Why are you so annoyed at Fr Morris, or does “inclusivity” just mean you include LGBT etc people and their supporters?  Nobody else is “included” in your “inclusivity”?

He said: “The university is strongly inclusive.
Ed:  You’ve still not explained what this means – IS Fr Morris included in this “inclusivity” or not? 

“We respect and promote equality and diversity.
Ed: no you don’t. Otherwise you would respect Fr Morris’s right to hold any kind of prayer event he wishes, in his own parish. 

“This includes an official presence at the last two Pride Glasgow events.”
Ed:  it’s the norm, now,  to be politically correct, toeing the LGBT etc propaganda line, to go with the flow. Few challenge it. Group-think rules. To quote G. K. Chesterton A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.

But Jordan added: “We are concerned about the message that this could send to the young people of Glasgow Caledonian University, and so would like to stress that these predictable voices of opposition are becoming increasingly drowned out by a Catholic and wider faith community which is supportive of LGBT equality.
Ed:  Jordan’s “concern” doesn’t say much about two things; firstly, the quality of students at Glasgow Caledonian University, who apparently can’t be exposed to any thinking person who goes against the establishment/popular view in society, and secondly, the Catholic community which, if it is “supportive of LGBT etc equality” is about as Catholic as the nearest Church of Scotland congregation.  There were Catholics like those at the time of the Reformation. They were called Protestants then, and that is what they are now – protesting the teaching of the Catholic Church, in this case, on sexual morality. 

“There were many people of faith who attended the Parade this weekend and in our efforts to advance LGBT-inclusive education in schools, we have been strongly supported by numerous Catholic Priests and their parishioners, as well as Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal Church ministers.
Ed:  that is utterly scandalous.  Faithful Catholics have a right to know the names of priests who “strongly support” LGBT etc education in schools. Their hypocrisy and duplicity must be exposed. They are living a lie, and stealing from parishioners who are donating to parish funds in the belief that their priests at least believe the doctrines of the Faith in their entirety. 

“Our experience working with the Scottish Catholic Education Service as part of the Scottish Government’s LGBT Inclusive Education Working Group has also been nothing but positive and productive.
Ed: again, that is scandalous, but we have known this for a while, thanks to the SCES openly boasting about the “safe spaces” they are making available for “gay” pupils in Catholic schools. 

“We know that those who support the LGBT community outweigh those who endorse intolerance and I imagine that the number of attendees to this service in contrast with those who attended the Pride parade would further prove that.”
Ed: now, you do have a point there. Thanks to the loss of divine and Catholic Faith within the Scottish hierarchy, which has trickled down to the majority of the clergy, there are now so few Catholics left in Glasgow that there are plans afoot to close and merge umpteen formerly thriving parish churches.  One day, however, these bishops and priests will be called to account for their negligence, for allowing themselves to be so seduced by worldliness that they actually fell into apostasy.  What a price, then, to pay. 

NUS Scotland’s LGBT+ Officer Kai O’Doherty added: “NUS Scotland is proud to be at the forefront of breaking down barriers facing LGBT+ people.
Ed: now there’s an original mantra…

“Universities should be a place where every student, regardless of religion, sexuality, or identity, feels accepted and supported to study without fear of discrimination.
Ed: even students who disapprove of same-sex activity?  Really?  I’ve heard stories galore of students being harassed and insulted for just expressing a contrary view on social media. In one case, the student had to take flight to Spain to complete her studies! No, tolerance really isn’t a hallmark of this whole LGBT etc juggernaut. 

“Everybody within our university communities has a duty to ensure that campuses are compatible with the accepting and progressive culture that they strive to achieve.
“We’re proud of the progress that has been made, but every day we are reminded of how far we still have to go to achieve a truly inclusive society.”
Ed: more junk-think but note:  anyone who is not in favour of the “progressive culture” (where every sin and then some is acceptable and promoted) is not given a place on the “inclusivity” bandwagon. 

Following Ms Sturgeon’s involvement in Pride, a Scottish Government spokesman said: “Scotland is considered to be one of the most progressive countries in Europe regarding LGBTI equality, and Pride Glasgow is a fantastic event that brings communities together and celebrates all that LGBTI people contribute to Scottish life.

“As a society we must champion equality and fairness at all times and defend the progress that has been made.”
Ed Hmmmm. Doesn’t quite tie in with the city motto, does it:  “Let Glasgow flourish by the preaching of Thy word and the praising of Thy name.”

Click here to read Evening Times article, minus Catholic Truth editorial comment.

Australia: Priests Facing Jail for Refusing to Break Seal of Confession…

From Lifesitenews

CANBERRA, Australia, June 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A new law in Australia requires Catholic priests in Canberra to break the sacred seal of confession to report a child-sex abuser. The law, which has drawn fierce opposition from Archbishop Christopher Prowse of Canberra, could result in faithful priests being jailed who refuse to comply.                             

                                                                                                                                                                   A bill passed on June 7 by the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) extends mandatory reporting of child abuse to cover churches and church activities, including the Catholic confessional. All the political parties in the Assembly supported the measure.

A  Catholic priest cannot violate the seal of the confessional, which means that he cannot repeat what he is told by a penitent confessing his or her sins, without incurring automatic excommunication. The Catholic Church teaches that confession is a sacrament, a place of encounter between the Christian and Jesus Christ. The priest who hears the confession is merely Christ’s instrument of forgiveness.

Hitherto the confessional was exempt from ACT’s reporting laws; from March 31, 2019, priests who do not report confessions regarding child abuse to the police risk prosecution.

Archbishop Prowse slammed the new law, saying “priests are bound by a sacred vow to maintain the seal of the confession. Without that vow, who would be willing to unburden themselves of their sins, seek the wise counsel of a priest and receive the merciful forgiveness of God?”

Prowse, the archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, wrote an essay in the Canberra Times last week explaining why legislating against the seal of confession will do much harm and no good.

“First, what sexual abuser would confess to a priest if they thought they would be reported?” he asked.

Prouse explained that it is the common experience of pastors that child abusers don’t confess their crimes to either priests or police. If the seal was removed, the theoretical possibility abusers might confess and be counselled to turn themselves in would be lost.

“Second, the government itself has acknowledged [with] the [Catholic] church’s ‘Truth, Justice and Healing Council… that […] it [was] difficult to see systematic abuse of the seal of confession,” Prowse wrote. “People who attend confession are sorry for their sins, indicate resolve not to sin again and seek God’s mercy. Pedophiles carry out evil and unspeakable criminal acts. They hide their crimes; they do not self-report.”

Third, he pointed out that priests do not necessarily know the identities of people who confess to them.

Fourth, he said that such a law attacks the inviolate seal of the confessional.
Originally the ACT government invited the archbishop to meet with the Attorney General to discuss the importance of both the protection of children and the seal of the confessional. However, the legislature began to debate the new bill before this meeting could take place. The archbishop decried this loss of opportunity for dialogue, pointing out that the proposed new law threatened religious freedom.

“Religious freedom is the freedom to hold a belief and, secondly, the freedom to manifest belief in community and in public, privately and individually in worship, observance, practice and teaching,” he explained.

“The government threatens religious freedom by appointing itself an expert on religious practises and by attempting to change the sacrament of confession while delivering not improvement in the safety of children,” he continued.

The new reporting laws will require priests to report allegations or offenses related to children to the ACT Ombudsman within 30 days.

Two members of the ACT Legislative Assembly thought forcing priests to break the seal of the confessional was a step in the wrong direction.

Andrew Wall, a former student of Marist College, a school notorious in Australia for child sex abuse allegations, said that while some of the child protection measures in the new law were “overdue”, he objected to its extension to the confessional.

According to the Canberra Times, Wall said forcing priests to break the confessional seal “significantly impinges on an individual’s freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of individual rights.”

Vicki Dunne, the second member, pointed out that a priest who breaks the seal of confession incurs an excommunication that can be lifted only by the pope. In addition, it would undermine Catholics’ trust in the “sacred, sacramental and sacrosanct” rite.

“We need to stop and think twice before we pass legislation that requires Catholic priest to break the seal of the confession,” she had warned.

Comment: 

I have to admit, golden beaches, beautiful homes and sunny climate notwithstanding, I’ve never felt the slightest desire to visit Australia, let alone live there. Now it’s on my list of countries in which I will never set foot.  I mean, the sheer nerve of the  grand-sounding numpties at the ‘Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory’ to threaten  jail for Catholic priests who adhere to a law of the Church which is entirely rooted in and bound up in divine law, as expressed in the above image, is breathtaking.

Would Australia dare to interfere with – and legislate against – any other religion, as it has outlawed a sacrosanct tenet of Catholicism?  It is, of course, a stupid and unworkable law, as outlined in the Church’s response above but it is revealing of the bigotry and nastiness of the Australian lawmakers that they would even think of passing such an evil law … the weather may be sunny over there in Aussie-land but they can keep it.   I’ll not be visiting Australia – ever.  What about you?  

Marriage & Modernist Double-Speak…

Extracts below from Catholic Herald article entitled: Cardinal lays out plan for parishes to implement Amoris Laetitia

Cardinal Donald Wuerl has issued a broad and detailed pastoral plan for parishes to implement Pope Francis’s post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (“The Joy of Love”).

“Amoris Laetitia is a call to compassionate accompaniment in helping all to experience Christ’s love and mercy,” the Archbishop of Washington said in the 58-page pastoral plan.

The plan, “Sharing in the Joy of Love in Marriage and Family,” was posted on the archdiocesan website late on March 3. Cardinal Wuerl planned to officially introduce the document to the archdiocese with a Mass on March 4 at the Cathedral of St Matthew the Apostle…

“Some may ask, ‘Is the teaching [on marriage] always binding?’ The answer of course is yes,” he continued. “Yet Amoris Laetitia invites us to adopt a complementary perspective and to look with a parental attitude at those families who find themselves in a position where they struggle to even understand, let alone embrace fully, the teaching because of the concrete circumstances in which they live.”

Cardinal Wuerl said his pastoral plan is “directed to parishes, priests, religious and laity” and is meant “to encourage reflection” on:

• “The richness of the Church’s perennial teaching on love, marriage, family, faith and mercy.”
• “The essential aspect of pastoral ministry, called accompaniment.”
• “Several significant themes such as the new evangelisation, the role of conscience, and the privileged place of the parish where we find and experience Christ’s way of living and loving.”  Read entire article here

Comment: 

So, “yes” Christ’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage is always binding, but here’s how to get round it… is essentially what the Cardinal is saying in typical modernist double speak. After all, a competent teacher,  confronted by a student who “struggles to even understand, let alone embrace fully” a subject  puts his/her mind and skill to working out ways to explain the subject more fully, more clearly, but doesn’t change the truth to make it more palatable.  2 + 2 will never make 5, no matter how much the student (and exasperated teacher) wishes it were so. 

Check out the bullet points – closely. Notice one of the “significant themes” is the role of conscience… Code for the heresy of “your choice,  your decision”, objective truth, objective morality does not exist but even if they do, well, rules are there to be broken, as the old saying goes. However it’s dressed up, and whatever the motivation, Amoris Laetitia (AL) is all about breaking the rules.

Still,  Cardinal Wuerl is a bit behind the AL times.  Here in the Archdiocese of Glasgow, we had retreats for priests and teachers almost as AL was rolling off the press, so chop-chop over there in the USA – we’re well ahead of you on this…

Bishop John Keenan of Paisley Welcomes Latest “Fertility Breakthrough”…

HUMAN eggs have been fully grown in a laboratory for the first time, in a breakthrough that could lead to improved fertility treatments.
Scientists have grown egg cells, which were removed from ovary tissue at their earliest stage of development, to the point at which they are ready to be fertilised.
The advance could safeguard the fertility of girls with cancer ahead of potentially harmful medical treatment, such as chemotherapy.

Immature eggs recovered from patients’ ovarian tissue could be matured in the lab and stored for later fertilisation…

The study, carried out in collaboration with the Royal Infirmary Edinburgh, The Center for Human Reproduction in New York and the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh, was supported by the Medical Research Council. It was published in Molecular Human Reproduction.
Professor Evelyn Telfer, of the School of Biological Sciences, who led the research, said: “Being able to fully develop human eggs in the lab could widen the scope of available fertility treatments.  Click here to read the entire report

On his Facebook page (screenshot above) Bishop John Keenan, Diocese of Paisley writes: “As far as I can see this is a potentially excellent breakthrough in fertility science. In principle, it is a great development if a woman’s eggs could be matured and made viable in vitro provided they could be re-implanted into her in readiness for fertilisation through the normal marital act. Obviously, this is quite different from IVF. 

Comment:

I have always presumed that ferility treatment meant treatment that made the woman fertile per se. These sorts of laboratory “test-tube” treatments do not appear to “cure” the woman’s infertility, merely find a way to by-pass it on a particular occasion. If I’m wrong about that, I’ll be pleased to be corrected. 

Otherwise, I’m afraid, I question why a Bishop would welcome such scientific means of achieving conception, instead of reminding us all that if we can’t get what we want, whether material goods or a baby, we must accept that, with holy resignation, as God’s will.  That was the attitude I heard from relatives who, sadly disappointed, were unable to have children. “Not to be” are words we seldom hear these days, with little to no encouragement from the average pulpit to accept this disappointment as, for His own inscrutable purposes, part of God’s plan for our salvation, His holy will.  Or perhaps you think that’s pie-in-the-sky theobabble? 

2018: The Year of Formal Schism?

THE REMNANT UNDERGROUND: Headed up by Bishop Athanasius Schneider and two other Archbishops from Kazakhstan, a total of 6 bishops and 1 cardinal have now signed a statement of opposition to the pope-approved interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that non-repentant public adulterers can return to the sacramental life of the Church. This is revolution and counterrevolution in a Catholic Church in total crisis. Plus, looking ahead to October’s Synod of Young People in Rome—will the Church deep six Humanae Vitae? Will the Vatican give the green light to so-called ‘gay unions’? Finally, an old Jimmy Stewart movie, “Call Northside 777”, includes a sobering reminder of what it used to mean to be Catholic–something Pope Francis would do well to consider.

Comments invited… 

Concern Over Pope Francis Grows: Schism Looms – Cardinals MUST Act!

From One Peter Five…

Pope’s Letter on Argentinian Communion Guidelines for Remarried Given Official Status

A letter from Pope Francis praising episcopal guidelines that would allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective grave sin has now been added to the official acts of the Apostolic See, conferring official status on what was formerly considered by many to be merely private communication — and raising the stakes on the Amoris Laetitia debate significantly.

Of the guidelines issued by the bishops of the Buenos Aires region that would open “the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist” in “complex circumstances” where “limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt” of couples who will not make the commitment to “live in continence” despite living in an objectively adulterous situation, the pope said in his letter that “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations.”

In August of this year, this letter was added to the Vatican website as a papal document available for public reference. Concerns were raised that what had previously been viewed as only private correspondence — and thus, completely outside the realm of papal magisterium — was being given the appearance of an official papal act.

Others were quick to point out that the presence of such a letter on the Vatican website, while troubling in itself, did not grant the document any status, but only publicity. The concern, as I speculated at the time, was that the letter seemed likely therefore to find its way into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis  (AAS) — the journal of the official acts of the Apostolic See. Such a move would confer an official, and at least quasi-authoritative status to the document, in as much as the AAS “contains all the principal decrees, encyclical letters, decisions of Roman congregations, and notices of ecclesiastical appointments. The contents are to be considered promulgated when published, and effective three months from date of issue.”

As Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti reported yesterday, the addition of the letter to the AAS has now been confirmed*:

[T]he “private” letter of Pope Francis to the Argentine bishops was published in the October 2016 edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, after they had issued directives for the application of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (the chapter with the famous footnotes on giving communion to the divorced and remarried). Directives which, as has been noted and emphasized here, are anything but clear.
The publication of this letter in the Acta is accompanied by a brief note from the Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, together with an official rescript from a papal audience in June 2017, announcing that the Pope himself wanted the two documents — the guidelines and the letter — published on the website of Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

The announcement can only serve to further fuel the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the controversial apostolic exhortation as well as the Pope’s way of doing things, which yet again appears to be a far cry from the clarity and straightforwardness that many of the faithful would expect [from the Holy Father]. He has given no response to the dubia Cardinals, no response to the letters, petitions and other initiatives written by scholars, theologians, and ordinary faithful people who have been confused by the deliberate ambiguity of the document. Yet, at the same time, he has given a veneer of officiality to one letter sent to one member of one bishops’ conference.

To what end? To obligate all to give religiosum obsequium [religious assent] to a magisterium expressed in oblique and ambiguous forms, or to respond without committing himself in a direct response which would express the mind of the Pope in an unequivocal manner to the doubtful and perplexed? One is given the feeling that the only thing this does is cause the simple believer annoyance with the Pope’s comportment, which may be defined as a “pretext” in the worst sense of that term.

You can view only the relevant section of the October 2016 edition of the AAS here (Spanish/Latin PDF). (The full edition is available here, but a word of caution – it’s a huge PDF document at nearly 1,200 pages and with a 300MB file size.)

Some outlets are already reporting that the presence of the Buenos Aires letter in the AAS elevates it to the level of “authentic Magisterium,” which would therefore require the aforementioned religious assent of mind and will (cf. Lumen Gentium 25). Others are not so sure. We asked for an assessment from Dr. John Joy, co-Founder and President of the St. Albert the Great Center for Scholastic Studies and a specialist in Magisterial authority. “It means that it is an official act of the pope,” Joy said, “rather than an act of the pope as a private person. So it cannot be dismissed as a merely private endorsement of their implementation of AL. It is an official endorsement. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the letter to the Argentine bishops is itself magisterial” and thus requiring religious submission of will and intellect. Such a requirement, Joy said, would only apply if the document intended to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Inasmuch as the letter was in praise of pastoral guidelines that were anything but concrete, this seems unlikely.

Dr. Joy pointed out that adding the letter to the AAS could, in fact, damage the credibility of Amoris Laetitia by potentially removing the possibility that it could be interpreted in an orthodox way through establishing, via its publication in the official acts of the Apostolic See, that the unorthodox interpretation is the official one.
Marco Tosatti says that even some who have been ideological supporters of the pope are allegedly losing patience with his brashness:

And further, if what we have learned from two different sources is true, this annoyance extends to the Vatican. A cardinal of great renown, a former diplomat, who has served an impressive career at the head of Congregations and in high offices in the Secretariat of State, is said to have reproved the Pope for his actions [as Pope], saying to him essentially, “We elected you to make reforms, not to smash everything.” News of this conversation — if it can be called a conversation — has spread through the Vatican, because it took place at a high decibel level, which carried through the fragile barrier of the doors and walls. The cardinal in question was one of those who supported the candidacy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in the conclave of 2013.

It would not be the first time such dissent has been reported from within the pope’s own camp. In March, The London Times reported that some of the cardinals who helped to elect Francis wanted Francis to step down out of fear that his agenda might cause a schism “more disastrous” than the one wrought by Martin Luther, and that the Church could consequently be “shattered as an institution”. That story indicated that at least some of the group had an interest in replacing the pope with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who heads up the aforementioned Secretariat of State.

Earlier this week, we also told you about a new book, The Dictator Pope, which alleges that many cardinals who helped elect Francis are experiencing “buyer’s remorse,” in part because Francis “is not the democratic, liberal ruler that the cardinals thought they were electing in 2013, but a papal tyrant the like of whom has not been seen for many centuries.”

It seems difficult to believe that just over a year ago, we were attempting to ascertain the veracity of the papal letter to the Argentinian bishops — which had been called into question nearly immediately after its publication — and we now learn that it was only the following month that it became an official act of the Apostolic See.

As reported in The Dictator Pope, the English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, “Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things.” Every day, we receive new evidence that this might have been a significant understatement.   Source – One Peter Five…

* Translated by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Comment: 

Discussing this development after Mass today, one of our bloggers twisted my arm to post this thread because, he argued, next to the new Mass, this is the single biggest catastrophe to afflict the post-Vatican II Church.  Explain why you do, or do not agree…

The Morality of Driverless Cars…

Comment:

Today, the Westminster Chancellor reveals his budget. He is expected to prioritise investment in driverless cars.  Reportedly, these will be on the road by 2021.

Should a Catholic buy a driverless car? Check out the short, 4 minutes video clip to consider some of the ethical and moral issues involved.  Would you buy one?  Take the passenger seat?  Me? I’d sooner walk…