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’!

Advent is a season of light, goodness, comfort, peace, and joy. It’s fitting that the American holiday of Thanksgiving comes at the end of the liturgical year and the beginning of the season of Advent. Our practice of “giving thanks” for the blessings we’ve received over the past year opens our hearts to receiving the love of Christ born during this time of waiting and hopeful anticipation. Thanksgiving helps us enter Advent with an “attitude of gratitude” – a thankfulness that comes from being loved by God and witnessing his presence working in our lives. We’re thankful for our families, who support and encourage us through life’s big ups and downs; our friends, who make us laugh and help us relax and have fun; our significant others, who teach us about love and selfless giving; our jobs which provide financial security and hopefully allow us to do good in the world; our health, especially in a time of high health care costs; our safety and security, when much of the world experiences extreme poverty or violence. Whether it’s big or little things, we have a lot to be thankful for this year and every year.

Last night I heard a talk by Claire Noonan, who runs the Siena Center at Dominican University in Chicago. The topic was “being called by our baptism.” She and other responders shared about God’s love being enough. Our baptism calls us to accept that love within ourselves and to share it with others; that is our mission, and that is enough. As we enter Advent, we begin reflecting on Mary’s choice to accept and share God’s love. She was grateful for the blessings of her faith, and she chose to follow God’s call by being mother to Jesus. In turn, Jesus accepted God’s love and shared it with others during his public ministry, to the point of death on the cross, which we celebrate in Lent/Easter.

It’s fitting that the liturgical season starts after Thanksgiving, and that it follows a circle between Christ’s birth and Jesus’ death. During Advent, we are called to reflect on the light of Christ, the love of God, and the call of our birth and baptism – let us do so with open and grateful hearts.

The poorest 40% of our world accounts for just 5% of global income. ‘How can this be?’ I hear you ask. Well:

The ten richest americans, according to the Forbes Rich List have a total worth of 298 billion dollars. This is while 12% of the US live in relative poverty.

This is the top ten Forbes Rich List:

62 – Warren Buffett (US)
60 – Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico)
58 – Bill Gates (US)
45 – Lakshmi Mittal (India)
43 – Mukesh Ambani (India)
42 – Anil Ambani (India)
31 – Ingvar Kamprad – Ikea (Sweden)
30 – KP Singh (India)
28 - Oleg Deripaska (Russia)
27 – Karl Albrecht (Germany)

The numbers are in billions.

Can someone please tell me what one person needs $1 billion dollars for? It would be impossible to spend in any reasonable lifetime – unless you lost it trying to make more or spent it on war, and that’s another story. Whoever knows say it soon, but say it slowly because I really don’t get it.

According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. I realise these facts are available but I’m repeating them here because it is so urgent that people listen. If current trends continue, the Millennium Development Goals target of halving the proportion of underweight children will be missed by 30 million children, largely because of slow progress in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Who amongst us is willing to explain this to thirty million starving children, or their families?

Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen. There are 2.2 billion children in the world and 1 billion of them live in poverty. 10.6 million children died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (this is the total number of children in France, Germany, Greece or Italy). 15 million children are orphaned each year due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or the UK).

Here is an analysis of long-term trends showing the distance between the richest and poorest countries:

• 3 to 1 in 1820
• 11 to 1 in 1913
• 35 to 1 in 1950
• 44 to 1 in 1973
• 72 to 1 in 1992

This is not an improvement. The world’s richest 20% consume 77% of the resources. The world’s middle 60% consume 21.5% and this leaves 1.5% for the poorest 20%. Fair?

I’m sorry for throwing so many facts at you but these are truly shocking. I do have one more however:

There are over two billion Christians on this planet. That’s one third of the population. Over one billion of these are Catholics. That’s one in six.

What does all this mean for each one of us today? Each one of us is called to lives of personal holiness, personal charity. If every Christian lives a life of personal holiness then the world would surely notice.

How am I called to express this in my life…how are you?

That’s the question. Do with it what you will but it has been asked. It cannot be ignored.

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.

The cost of bread is up 20% on last year, flour is up 42%, milk is up 31%…..while the €33 million for homeless services remains €33 million.

So what does this €33 million mean to over 3000 homeless people in Ireland today?

Minimum wage at 40 hours a week leaves the worker, after tax, with around €280 and almost everyone of sound mind agrees that this is an insult in an Ireland where everything costs.

If the government gave this €33 million out to the homeless like the dole they would get €209 per week. This is bad but it doesn’t really sound terrible. Now, recognise how the government usually spends it’s money…(health service!)…in other words everything seems to disappear. This equates, in laymans terms, to the government not giving a damn.

What does this disrespect for the homeless mean to us as Christians then?

Acknowledging that we are all sons and daughters of the living God we are all born with a dignity due to such a title. As I’ve mentioned before society teaches us to de-humanise the homeless so we won’t have to feel bad when we see them. This is a scandal. This is the only scandal greater than the existance of homelessness in the first place. When we de-humanise we attempt to strip someone of their status as children of God. We have no right!

This pittyful attempt by the government to buy off spectators and silence pressure groups with a ’stratagy’ with no means of implementation is an insult to every man, woman and child who recognises another’s humanity and it has become clear that the horrendous cancer that is society’s apathy has seeped into Dáil Eireann!

We are called as Christians to stand up for the dignity of life and yet crowds rarely march for the homeless. We are called as Christians to stand as one voice and cry from our society’s wilderness that this is not good enough, that this will not do and that we are no longer prepared to stay quiet while our government authorises apathy and the de-humanisation of a section of our society struggling to stay above the rising tide of ignorance and neglect.We are called as Christians to walk with Christ and Christ walks with the poor and the marginalised. We are called as Christians to give a damn.

Gary Crutchley from Walsall was scrutinised at a fun fair for simply taking a picture of his of his two youngest children Cory, seven, and Miles, five, while they had fun on a slide.

Mr. Crutchley was then allegedly called a pervert by another parent and was asked to stop taking pictures by others families waiting in line.

Call me crazy, and yes I have been called that before, but are we not taking things too far? There is a want and need to trust people and especially from a child’s point of view. They want to be able to feel safe and secure while under the supervision of adults and I fully understand that.

However when it gets to a stage where every person, in public, seen taking a picture is deemed to be a threat to children. It has to be a case of political correctness gone horribly wrong.

Yes there are evil people that will take advantage of young children and commit unspeakable acts to them. However at a time where we it is plain to see that the idea of family togetherness is largely not present in society, shouldn’t we be giving credit for those that do decide to take their children to these kind of events instead of tarnishing them with a brush?

It is naïve, but maybe that is the world we are living in now. One that closes ranks and tries to banish anything that is remotely seen as negative and will turn the best intentions into the worst outcomes.

I thought we were all better then that?

The bishops’ pastoral reflection concerning the Lisbon Treaty, on the theme “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain” (Ps 127:1) has provided voters with some valuable food for thought.

In the opening section of their reflection, the bishops draw our attention to the fact that “this is a referendum on the merits of a particular treaty; it is not a referendum to assess our views on membership of the European Union…”

By its very existence, the group, EUReform demonstrates the accuracy of the bishops’ observation in that it is both opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and pro Europe.

Contrary to much of the propaganda from the yes campaign, I believe it is not only possible to combine opposition to Lisbon with support for Europe, but it is actually necessary to take this position, if we are also to take seriously our obligation to respect the people of Europe whose voices are deliberately not being heard.

The people of Europe, the true heart of Europe, rejected this constitution in its earlier pre Lisbon ‘wrapper’.

But, their democratic decision became the stone rejected so contemptuously by the builders of the Lisbon Treaty – if Christianity is not at the heart of Europe, then don’t expect derived Christian principles like respect for the democratic rights of others to be there either, in anything but name!)

To add insult to injury, the Chairman of the Convention which drew up the original form of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, openly admits that Lisbon contains “all the earlier proposals (from the earlier form of the Constitution)” … “that we dare not present to them directly” … “but (they are) hidden and disguised in some way.” (The Independent, London, 30 October, 2007)

Surely, deceit and the rejection of democracy are no basis on which to construct “the new European home which will be a good place for all to live only if built on the basis of authentic values which are founded on the universal moral law written on the heart of every person.” (Pope Benedict XVI, quoted in the bishops’ reflection). Deceit is clearly not an authentic value!

Surely, this is not how the Lord would “build the house,” to quote the bishops in their reference to Psalm 127 (above), on a foundation of deceit, a ‘foundation of sand’.

The unwillingness of some ‘yes’ campaigners to tolerate conscientious objection and the attempts by others to silence voices within the Church – which in some cases amounted to a form of interference in the Church by the state – has been a feature of this campaign.

It is to the bishops’ credit, therefore, that they have not been intimidated into calling for a ‘yes’ vote but have spoken out against such ‘bully-boy’ tactics, which are surely a sign of what we could expect from any post-Lisbon EU: “Conscious of the pressure from powerful interest groups in Ireland and in other parts of the EU to influence the outcome of the referendum, we ask also that the right of people to exercise their franchise freely be respected.”

Finally, the bishops ask the question, “what kind of Europe do we want for our children?”

Yes indeed! This question should be at the centre of our hearts when we cast our vote this Thursday. What kind of Europe do we want for our children: one that is “built on the basis of authentic values which are founded on the universal moral law written on the heart of every person” or one that is built on deceit and and which therefore lacks democratic authority (as noted by pro European journalist Adrian Hamilton writing in the Independent – Thursday May 29)?

The heart of Europe is not a treaty. The heart of Europe is its people! Let us not bypass them to build a Europe based on sand. Vote ‘No’.

I wondered whether we were too insular, not just Ireland, but Western Society. I certainly do not know my neighbours anywhere near as well as I used to and because of that I think we all miss out on having a sense of community.

I’m not saying you have to get on all the time with your neighbours and regularly invite them around but longer working hours, more stresses and strains in life and the development of technology means we do not have to and, in most cases, do not want to leave our homes once we arrive back after work.

It’s just interesting to me that we have lost that in our lives and our comforts are not what they once were.

There are 900 employees where I work and with the best will in the world there is absolutely no chance that all will get along. With that said they are a good bunch of people that produces a good working environment; when the nature of dealing with complaints all day would usually cause some to vent their frustration out rashly on others.

If we told the people we were close to, cared about and those we worked with exactly how we felt all of the time, would we still be as close to them?  I think because of our emotions and vulnerability we need to believe that those we are close to appreciate us.

The workplace can create an environment to bringing people together and also to stab people in the back. Some will stop at nothing to get to the top and when they do not get what they want, they blame others for their failings. It is sad to see mostly intelligent people reduced to childishness.

The thing is, once we reach the top of our profession, we can find that it is more difficult to be up there alone.

From the Taoiseach getting confused as to what he actually meant to say to an article about the extramarital affairs; the newspapers today have been able to reveal lies in one form or another. Sometimes we can get wrapped up so much in the lie that even the person telling it can start to believe it.

I lie, every day at some stage, I think I even do it unconsciously to such an extent that in one part of the job I do it becomes second nature. I’d love to be able to be more honest with people in that line of work, but unfortunately the information I have to give and have access to can be sensitive. Do I like lying? No, this is why I try to do it as little as possible…which is never an easy thing to do.

There are those that can say they have never told a lie but in reality we know that this is not the case. Lies can be a smokescreen; just to get someone to stop questioning us about our methods and activities.

At the end of the day, if you cannot be honest with yourself, it is unlikely you will be able to be honest to other people. More and more we are told that things are being done for our benefit, more and more we sit back and let it be done until it comes the time we find that it benefited some other entity entirely.

Maybe we can’t handle the truth…or is that a lie?