In an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine out tomorrow, actress Jennifer Aniston spoke about the “pressure” people felt to have a relationship that will last. “Whoever said that everything has to be forever? That’s unrealistic or hoping for too much. I don’t think it’s worth all that pressure,” Aniston told Cosmo!

Now, hold on a minute there, ‘friend’! Let’s just unpack this awhile! First of all, where is this “pressure” you’re referring to coming from? Surely, these days, to quote Cole Porter, “Heaven knows, anything goes”?

What does a modern western society care about who should be allowed to marry, how long a marriage should last or, if, indeed, anyone should get married, in the first place?

Well, perhaps the answer is, that despite all the noise to the contrary, ’society’, actually, does care about these things and ’society’, actually, cares a lot.

But, why? Why does society care so much? Given the way the ’free love’ commandment (’do unto others and do and do and do’) is regularly genuflected to in our media, why is society resisting the ’slime directive’ and stubbornly putting poor people like Jennifer under this pressure to have a relationship that will last?

Could it be that it is actually written into our nature, and Jennifer’s, too, to seek out lasting relationships? Why? Because, ultimately, we know, deep within our genes — or wherever — that that is what we should do because that is what will make us happy or happi-er, in any case ( I mean, only God can make us truly happy, right? )

Only yesterday, Trinity College’s leading Neuroscientist, Professor Ian Robertson (I hope I haven’t trod on anyone’s toes here) told Newstalk’s Orla Barry that to break the values you hold (in that case, honesty — the discussion was about a taxi driver who had found $32,500 and returned it to its rightful owners) is to damage yourself.

These inconvenient values, along with our requirement to act in accordance with them, are built into our genes or something over millions of years and you can’t just jettison them because you feel like it or because some other psychologist says you should (jettison them, that is).

You see, looking at it again, Jennifer’s call to hopelessness – for that is what it is – seems like the tail of that trojan horse which an old atheist and pseudo-psychologist named Albert Ellis deposited in our lives many years ago. Ellis ‘observed’ (psychologists always say they ‘observe’ when they want to avoid being contradicted) that what makes us mentally ill, in the shape of anxiety and depression, is our beliefs about what we should do when what we do do contradicts those beliefs.

That makes a lot of sense, in a way, I suppose, but instead of suggesting that people change their behaviour and follow their consciences ( the reasonable thing to do, surely ), Ellis proposed that the word ’should’ itself was the problem — Ellis used to speak about his patients ’shoulding’ all over themselves! The word ’should’, according to Ellis, should be taken out of the English language.

I think the first thing one should notice here is that the old Ellis idea which, at one point, enjoyed almost universal approval in pseudo-psychological and, I’m afraid, Church and religious circles too, seems to contradict what Prof Robertson said — it also contradicts the latest scientific research, by the way! You can’t just shake off your ’shoulds’ as if they were some acquired and otherwise inexplicable social ‘construct’. No, they come straight from, wait for it, this is going to hurt, the Natural Law, yes, the old Ten Commandments themselves. Surprise, surprise, there’s no real getting away from your conscience.

Secondly, just think about it for a minute: If you took the word ’should’ out of the English language, how many of the Ten Commandments would you be left with? But that was the whole point, wasn’t it?

Amazing, really: that intelligent, often religious people fell for this ruse from the author of The Case against Religion: the Psychotherapist’s View; that an atheist activist who who liked to refer to Christianity as “an irrational belief system” which he taught was at the core of many mental health problems – particularly among Catholics – was allowed a powerful place in the heart of many a Christian counselor! So much for John Paul II’s exhortation “duc(ere) in altum” ( “put out into the deep”). For goodness sake, forget about the deep, all you have to do is barely scratch the surface and you see this anti Christian / anti monotheistic idea for what it is.

What’s really ironic is that the exhortation to ‘be your best’ seems to have near universal approval in every area other than morality. The one area that offers life ( “the flesh has nothing to offer” –  John 6:63 — after all ) only offers life if we love to the end, to the utmost, with our whole heart, our whole mind, our whole strength — assuming we want to be happy. St Paul (a word for him as we approach the end his year) talked about Christians running in a race looking for an imperishable wreath (1 Corinthians 9: 24-27). So let’s hold out for excellence in the moral life and for one expression of that, the pursuit of permanent lasting relationships. Let’s not be taken in by Jennifer’s and Albert’s ‘call to hopelessness’ because it is “by hope we are saved” (Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict XVI, 2007).

And, on the day, more or less, that the Pope visits Mt Nobo where tradition states that God gave Moses a view of the Promised Land from afar, let’s hear it for Moses, let’s hear it for perseverance and let’s hear it for the hope that the word ’should’ should point to!

This blog has been brought to you today by the number 10 and by the word ’should’!

At first I thought about what the Church of England had to gain by a posthumous apology. The newspapers reported the story with quotes from Darwin’s great-great grandson, saying how he thought it was pointless. I suppose that posthumous apologies are always going to be pointless, but they can act as an invite of public pardon for the behaviour of an institution. Of course, it also turns down the heat a little when it comes to secular criticism. 

I can only speak from my own experiences – but it seems there is a prevalent lack of understanding when it comes to spiritual or religious systems. People pay attention to what is thrust in front of them most often – and I believe that through a mixture of lazy media coverage and unengaging education, things become boiled down to the least number of options. Christianity is simmered down to bible-belt creationists; Islam is reduced to babbling terrorists.
A posthumous apology then, may be a good way of distancing the C of E from Palin and the religious right in the US, that are currently dominating our newspapers (and soon, possibly our world).

The apology itself was an interesting read. It seems to have a kind of ‘misery loves company’ angle, and though it admits that the critical attacks on Darwin in the 1860s were ‘misguided’ – it places more emphasis on the misapplication of Darwin’s ideas, arguing that natural selection effectively encourages racism and discrimination. It then suggests that these misuses were ‘perhaps predicted’ all along.

Undeniably, the C of E’s message to focus on the ‘human capacity for love, for altruism, and for self-sacrifice’ is relevant and applaudable.

However, by offering what will be seen as a watered down apology, they leave themselves open to criticism. When you are extending olive branches, it is good practice to make sure they are strong and firm.

In his infamous work, ‘Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei’‘, Bellarmine wrote about everything from the Word of God to the authority of Church councils, from the sacraments to grace, free will, justification or good works and, most significantly, the place of the Roman Pontiff. No heresy was too far for this apologist to engage with head on. While a cardinal inquisitor he retained his dignity as a scholar and insisted on theological engagement, refusing to rebuke for its own sake.

His inspired work helped to roll back the tide of the reformation from much of Europe while responding openly to true moves for reform within the Roman Church. Robert Bellarmine was a massive intellect intune with a greater Will. He remained dedicated to the Greater Glory of God in an atmosphere and time where the temptation to glorify oneself was at its peak. Its difficult to sum up this giant but the word ’brilliant’ does some justice.

Today is the 387th anniversary of Bellarmine’s death and so is recognised by the Church as his feast day. I thought it only fair then to bare some witness to the extraordinary contribution gleaned by our world from this saint.

Last night a friend and I came across a homeless man on O’Connell bridge in dire need of some medical, if not also pastoral, help. After spending some time trying to convince him to allow us call an ambulance we were forced to leave him, in the hope that we could return and try again. We were confident that he would not survive the night on the bridge as he was visibly quite ill.

When we got back to the bridge the man was gone. We searched but couldn’t find him. I would love to think that this was because someone else came across him and brought him to a hospital. The reality though is that this man had been sitting there for hours when we arrived.

Whatever happened to this man has happened but I would make this appeal: if you don’t already then look and see people when they’re there…especially those on the fringes…,those in need. St. Bellarmine said: “Charity is that with which no man is lost, and without which no man is saved.” Please be saved.

Thousands of people set up the ‘Climate Camp’ to protest plans for a third runway.  Many of these campaigners declared their willingness to break the law with trespass being one of the crimes committed, from the 14th – 21st August at the site.

Towards the end of the camp small scuffles broke out and the police were forced to take action. Unfortunately instances such as these seem to happen at many protests in more recent times. My question is why? Why to solidify a point must there be violence?

I realise that, at times, there is a provocation from the authorities but at the same time there are still people, under the guise of being committed to the cause, who simply turn up to cause trouble.

How is ‘direct action’ going to convince any authority figure that the change a protestor wants should take place?  For that matter how are you going to convince others to join your crusade if all you are capable of is violence? Protests should be peaceful and intelligent and make leaders think about what they are doing.

They should also inspire others in contributing to the cause. Violence breeds violence is a phrase that is not always true, but in this case if anyone who is that way inclined sees riots in what should be a peaceful altercation does that not inspire them to ‘fight the good fight’?

That old law about ‘an eye for an eye’ leaves everybody blind. The time is always right to do the right thing.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Protests and strikes seem to be more of a hindrance to us nowadays. Whenever train and bus drivers and pilots threaten the government with strikes the first thing we do is think about how their actions will affect our travel plans.

Perhaps it is the way we have been conditioned by the media but society seems to have shorter attention spans then before. So as a result of this the things that upset us today may very well be forgotten about tomorrow. We may look back on it and say ‘I wonder whatever happened with…’ having thought no more about it the day after reading the story.

Things are changing and since September 11th 2001 it seems are rights have been dwindling. In some parts of America police set up certain areas for groups to protest during political speeches. What the groups tend to find is the area assigned for their demonstration is usually away from the site of the speech and thus away from the glare of the media and politicians.

Do we complain about the constraint on our rights? No. Governments constantly feel they can do what they like, no matter how much is wasted, no matter how controversial, or illegal, their intentions are. We take it all in because we don’t have the time to really care about it until it truly affects us in a severe way.

There are ways to protest, ways to get people to sit up and take notice. Martin Luther King paved the way for peaceful protest. Some will point to its futility as the great man was assassinated but for a short while he proved it could work.

John Lennon ended up in a court room battle because of his protests for peace. The US government believed they could silence him if they took away his right to live and work in America. He took them on and won.

Maybe it’s a case of growing frustration with the flower power generation which led to violent methods in the 1970’s and we have become more used to that then anything else. Yes it takes perseverance and quite possibly when patience is lost we turn to anger and force to get our point across.

I believe the main reason for the lack of interest in protesting for rights is that there is no one around today that can encourage to show up in great numbers to let those in charge know what we feel. Politicians constantly boast of being in touch with the people and knowing what we want. If that is the case then we are whispering our intentions when we should be screaming because the silence is deafening

You have to do it yourself. That’s what the great masters and mistresses have been saying ever since time began. They can point the way, leave signposts and little instructions in various books that are now called holy and worshiped for the cover of the book and not for what it says, but the instructions are all there for all to see, have always been and always will be. There’s nothing new under the sun. All the roads lead to Rome. And people cannot provide it for you. I can’t wake you up. You can wake you up. I can’t cure you. You can cure you.

John Lennon
 

There have been many conspiracy theories as to whether the ‘King’ is still alive. In fact at www.elvislives.net they are convinced of this and have come up with a Top Ten list that shows ‘Evidence that Elvis Presley hoaxed his own death’

Two of these include:

The day after his death, a ticket to Buenos Aires was bought at Memphis Airport by someone that, it is claimed, looked like Elvis. The person in question is said to have used the name John Burrows, which was a code name used for hotel reservations while on tour.

Elvis’ Father, Vernon is said to have misspelled the ‘King’s’ Middle name – Aaron     instead of Aron as his Mother named him. Apparently this a sign that ‘Vernon Presley knew that it was not his son in the tomb’

So Elvis could be in your local pub on Karaoke night or perhaps helping out the less fortunate in South America or the like, either way there are enough people who believe that he is indeed alive and well.

A survey conducted by the CBS national television network has shown, in the United States, that some seven percent of the population, or 20 million people, still believe that Elvis is still alive.

There is reason enough to understand why his fans feel like they must apply a kind of religious devotion hen discussing his merits. For a start, both Jesus and Elvis were born under the star sign of Capricorn. There were twelve apostles and Elvis’ entourage, the Memphis Mafia, also had twelve members.

Elvis was a Christian so who knows what he would have made of the constant devotion and the use of his name being used for the numerous sightings since his recorded death.

What is certain that this worship is set to continue; His songs touched many people’s lives and changed them, hopefully for the better? Around 600,000 visit Graceland every year and it is estimated that he has sold over 1 billion records around the world.

For the impact he made in the music world, maybe it is not a surprise as to how he is revered. Treated as a Saint on earth, one can only presume he has been treated the same way in the afterlife.

As a side note:for Mother Teresa, and millions of others around the world (myself included) the being in  the womb IS a child…a living baby.

Abortion is the cause of death for millions every year. To take an extreme example: more than 60% of all recorded pregnancies have been aborted each year in Russia since records began in the early 20th century. Closer to home for Mother Teresa was the reality that in India the procedure which can tell the sex of a foetus had to be banned by the state to protect the lives of countless females. It was found that often where a boy would be allowed live a girl would be aborted…

It is very difficult to get acurate figures for abortion as many are not recorded but an accepted figures for worldwide abortions per annum are all around 30 million . 30 million!!!! Now that really makes you think, doesn’t it.

So, with this in mind, what was this woman trying to tell us? Words she used nearly three decades ago are still ringing in many ears but is the meaning?

Mother Teresa used her acceptance speech of a peace prize to wonder what is standing in the way of peace in the world today. Her reasoning stemmed from the understanding that fear can lead to lashing out. She spoke of hard working parents who don’t see their children as much as they’d like to. This leaves children feeling somewhat abandoned…and the sense of security which existed until an older age in years gone by is now being chipped away by longer working hours.

This modern experience leaves a void in the lives of the child and children are made stand alone earlier than before…yet this is too early and fear abounds. According to Mother Teresa’s stream of thought this is what leads to rising crime rates amongst todays youth and so an extra strain put on our communities sense of calm…sense of ‘peace’.

Longer working hours is taking more and more from those years where a child should depend wholly on their parents. Then…comes abortion. If any then the one place where the occupant should feel total security and peace is in their mother’s womb. What then if this peace is threatened? What if this place of safety can no longer be guranteed? It would then be possible for fear to penetrate the very womb and so all peace is lost.

Another angle to look at is that: if a mother can kill her own child then this would shadow other crimes. This is the most horrific type of crime imaginable, is it not? This means that if mothers are granted the right to carry out this act then anything is possible in the world of crime…..peace is surely gone with that very child.