A long time ago during the process of a job application I was required to take a fatuous psychometric test of very dubious value. One of the questions that stuck in my mind was “which would you rather be, a landscape gardener or a bishop?”. Given that I have a tendency to kill plants as soon as I even look at them, that I can’t bear getting dirt under my fingernails and I hate being stung and scratched, a bishop seemed like the most obvious answer. You get to wear a pointy hat and purple has always been my favourite colour. Twas a no-brainer really!

Of course, being a woman, at the time I took the test, being a bishop was not a career option that was ever open to me, (nor indeed any non-Christians, hence the inanity of the question) but it looks as if that is all due to change over the course of the weekend.

I personally am very sad about developments, and not simply because it seems likely that women are to become bishops. What saddens me is that the Church of England, which previously had a reputation for it’s liberalness, for its open-mindedness, for being a broad Church, is displaying exactly the same kind of intolerance towards opponents of women bishops, which it is professed to fight.

This is not a question of misogyny or intolerance. The opposition to women priests and bishops is not based on fear, intolerance or a sense of male superiority. The Bible is extremely clear on the equality between man and woman,”God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) Mankind is created in God’s image, both male and female. Those who are opposed to women priests and bishops base their opposition on theological grounds.

Though, personally, I have absolutely no doubts about whether or not a woman could adequately perform the priestly ministerial duties, we need only look at the complete mess that the English Bishops have made of the Papal Visit (couldn’t be trusted to book the parish hall for quiz night) to realise that their priestly orders haven’t exactly imbued them with admin skills. In fact, whilst I’m on the subject, most priests I know seem to be a little *ahem* lacking in this area, although to be fair, I don’t remember Jesus saying anything about paperwork when He was giving out the sacraments! This is not about doubting women’s ability to perform the role, but what needs to be remembered is that no-one, male or female has the “right” to be a priest or bishop. It is not like a job application with all the ensuing and necessary equality legislation. It is a sacrament, and no one has a title to grace. It is an unmerited gift from Christ.

This may strike some as unfair, if this is a gift reserved for men, but  God has given women other gifts that he has not given to men. For example, women bring the body of Christ (souls) into the world one birth at a time. Men do not have this privilege. Priests bring the body of Christ (Eucharist) into the world one Mass at a time—a gift reserved to them, acting in the person of Christ.

The problem comes for the Church of England in that if despite the best of intentions, women do not hold valid orders and are not in fact priests, this then has ramifications for the future of the Church of England, in that there is doubt as to whether those ordained by women bishops, do in fact hold valid, sacramental orders.

I cannot help but believe that it is wrong for traditionalists not to have any compromise afforded to them, and to be forced to accept the jurisdiction of someone whom they do not believe to be in possession of sacramental orders. This is not about female repression or subjugation. This is not about inequality. Actually the inequality comes from the liberals themselves who are refusing to let the traditionalists keep to their position. It seems to me that the Church of England is saying “there is room for everyone’s views, except yours”. The liberals screaming that they have won and that there can be no room for catholics to be able to keep their integrity intact, that they need to be forced to accept women in the episcopate, is highly unedifying. I hope that some compromise may be reached, not least for the sake of Christian Unity. Whatever happens it is a sad and momentous weekend.

Back to the original question, I guess I would have to accept the landscape gardening position. At least I’d get to sit on one of those fun ride-on mowers!

“but now you’re just my delicious ickle snuggle-dumpling”.  Watching the nauseating spectacle of Mr and Mrs Cameron-Clegg pledging their political troths earlier, the  need for some good old-fashioned vicious political satire never seemed more pressing. Spitting Image would have had an absolute field day. The two Davids would have had nothing on this pair. “I wuv ooo”, “no, I wuv ooo more”, “I know I said that you were the devil incarnate, but that was just my teensy weensy ickle joke, my way of showing you how much I wuv oo”, “I love it when you talk tough on those benefit scroungers, it gives me a wibbly feeling in my tummy”…

Spitting Image would have had them mincing up the aisle of the Downing Street Rose Garden (and fancy choosing that as a venue) strewing rose petals and staging a 24-hour love-in and then both emerging hot, sweaty and triumphant at  having thrashed out their differences in a manly yet-loving fashion. *shudders*. The possibilities are endless.

Being a closet aficianado of Meatloaf, Paradise by the Dashboard Light suddenly takes on a whole new political resonance. You can see CallmeDave cast in the role of the wannabe lover, convinced he’s going to score a home-run, Clegg as the lover who won’t succumb until he has exacted firm committed promises, CallmeDave getting increasingly carried away on a sea of passion, his lust blinding him to the realities of the situation, with both parties finally  “praying for the end of time, it’s all that I can do…praying for the end of time, so I can end my time with you” following a union of recrimination, regret and bitterness.

Alternatively I could see Mr and Mrs Cameron-Clegg singing a very convincing version of The Ballad of Tom Jones. “You stopped us from killing each other – PR, PR, PR, PR, you’ll never know but you saved our political lives. I never fagged for Louis Theroux, and I don’t come from Slough”. Or something.

Call me an old cynic but this ‘new politics’ has an eerily familiar ring. I also don’t believe that selling out your core principles re-branded as “compromise” is “grown up” you patronising so and so. It’s called hypocrisy and displays a seamy desire for power on both sides. So long as we’re in government it doesn’t really matter if we ditch most of our manifesto eh boys? Being “grown up” is leading by example, it’s showing courage and perhaps giving the country another opportunity to cast their vote, given the first round of voting was so indecisive. In an AV system isn’t the party that comes last, eliminated?

In the meantime, come back Spitting Image – you’re sorely needed.

Oh and in other news, I had a wonderful snapshot of middle England. The champagne being cracked open as Gordon made his exit and today when the news referred to “the prime minister, David Cameron” my mum clutching herself with joy,stealing a teary-eyed misty glance at my dad and declaring “how WONDERFUL to hear that” in paroxysms of delight, made my week!

The internet is absolutely aflame with claim and counter-claim regarding Philippa Stroud. What disturbs me about this affair, other than Mrs Stroud’s alleged prayer-sessions, is that the mainstream press appear to have been subject to a gagging order and party to veiled threats on behalf of her lawyers, who have apparently been contacting a number of media outlets and reminding them of their duties under Section 106 of the Representation of the Peoples Act. This makes it illegal to publish any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct, unless the publication can show that they had reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true.

Whilst I can recognise the agenda behind the whole story and still believe that it is being whipped into a frenzy by those who believe that the Conservative Party is full of homophobes and bigots as well as part of an ultra right-wing fundamentalist Christian conspiracy to grab power,  I think nonetheless that there are elements of this story which do stand up to scrutiny and upon which the press should be entitled to report.

Mrs Stroud’s statement is perfectly frank:

“I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent more than 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and who are often not helped by state agencies. Drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless are just some of the people that I and my friends in the charitable sector have tried to help over the years…The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is false and insulting”.

I tend to believe her and I stand by my assertion that she is decent, honest and sincere woman, someone full of compassion, motivated by her Christian ideals who wants to help the most needy in our society.

What is telling about her statement, however, is that no mention is made of these reported prayer sessions which have caused widespread revulsion. When it was pointed out that the allegations did not concern her views on whether or not homosexuality was an illness but whether or not it could be “cured” by prayer sessions and casting out demons, her spokesman refused to elaborate.

It seems that there is factual evidence that these sessions did take place as there are at least two separate witness accounts and she has written a book God’s Heart for the Poor in which she explains with how to deal with demonic activity.

Without going into too much depth, ascribing homosexual inclinations to demonic activity is not a view held by mainstream Christianity. Indeed demonic activity is an extremely rare occurrence, in approximately 98% of cases it is deemed that there is no actual possession or demonic presence.There is no harm in praying for and with someone who is troubled by aspects of their sexuality however this is an entirely different prospect to what has been reported.

The Conservatives and Mrs Stroud’s office are clearly now involved in a major damage limitation exercise hence the various letters that have been sent to the media. I don’t believe that CallmeDave is a homophobic, his swift actions in the case of Philip Larnder have certainly displayed the impression that there is no room for anyone perceived of homophobia in his Tory Party and many of the party’s leading lights seem to display enlightened views.  My feeling is that someone in Tory HQ will have a few questions to answer with regards to the selection process and how someone who engages in questionable practices bound to alienate a vast proportion of the majority managed to slip through the net.

Whether or not Mrs Stroud is an honorable person is not in doubt. Whether or not she would be a worthy representative of the constituency of Sutton is up to the electorate who should be allowed to make an informed choice based on all of the facts. It is a sad day for democracy when the party traditionally associated with Libertarianism employs the tactics of the Soviet Union.

Mrs Gillian Duffy has reportedly turned down huge sums of money to sell her story to the press. According to Max Clifford she could make up to £250,000 but only if she wants to. She is currently besieged by reporters, hence she has employed a PR firm one, with admittedly Tory links, but this is due to a family connection. Feeling under strain, Mrs Duffy rang her daughter who is head of compliance at a Manchester firm of lawyers, who use Bell Pottinger North to handle their own PR.

“This has got no link to any political associations that Bell Pottinger as a group might have,” Mr Butters said. “This comes purely from the family connection. We have not tried to influence Mrs Duffy in any way, we have simply passed on to her the options that have been put to us. These range from doing a deal with a particular newspaper, to just reading out a statement outside the house. There have been lots of offers that have been declined, and some are still on the table.”

If Mrs Duffy manages to hold firm and resist the lure of easy money from people who wish to sway the vote and exploit the situation, she will certainly  prove herself to be a woman of enormous moral convictions as well as the voice of the people.

Had I been in her situation I would have undoubtedly fluffed my questions due to nerves. Had Clegg or Cameron (I’m still oscillating)  called me a ‘dizzy blond bimbo’ as a result of either misunderstanding my question, frustration, or plain disrespectful prejudice, then I wouldn’t hesitate to sign on the dotted line.

Mind you, they would probably have had a point!

I hate all this pop-psych jargon. Probably because I don’t understand half of it.

I need this blog as a bit of an outlet at the moment. Even if no-one reads it, I just feel the need to let off steam, to have my primal scream, in way that isn’t possible in real life.

I do feel hopelessly misunderstood. That fundamentally bothers me. I guess I just have to come to terms with the fact that none of us can be liked by all of the people all of the time and I need to come to terms with the fact that it really doesn’t matter what people think, it’s what’s in your heart that is of true value and worth.

The problem is, that at the moment, if I express any sort of hurt then I am instantly accused of manipulation, playing the victim and being passive-aggressive. In my ignorance I had no idea of what passive-aggressive meant, so I had to do a quick wikki.

I’m pretty sure that I’m not displaying any of those characteristics. All I want to do is say “play nicely chaps”. Can’t we keep the personal insults, name-calling and mud-slinging out of this. Debate a point on its merits as opposed to resorting to unkind retorts and schoolyard tactics, along the lines of “I hate you and so does x, y and z, here’s what they’ve said about you and look they’re still sending me emails about you”. It is making me want to leave the internet, to not be able to express myself at all for fear or what you might say or do next, particularly when I have been told “you’ll find a way to play the victim, you’ll manipulate that’s what you do”. This is not manipulation. This is simply saying stop. Enough. I enjoy the debate, but I don’t like being verbally assaulted and abused. I don’t like being called offensive names and labels which bear no relation to the reality.

Or is it simply that I’m not allowed to have feelings either? By refusing to believe hurt feelings, to accuse me of manipulation is to deflect your own guilt in the matter, apportioning blame elsewhere rather than taking responsibility. I conceded that I may have been a ill-judged in some of my choice of language. Why can’t you do the same? Is that because to admit that I might be genuinely hurt and upset and defensive as a result, concedes that I am human and not the unfeeling, uncaring bigot you would have us all believe?

In any event, continuing to blame me, continuing to assert how right you are and how universally despised I am and how my hurt is actually some elaborate sham, now that really is genuine passive-aggressive behaviour.

I almost came off FB again, I almost deleted this blog, heck it probably won’t be read that much, but I shall leave with the following bit of light relief.

All rather topical methinks.

Turning to my trusty OED again, I needed to remind myself of the definition of Homophobia:

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people

OK. Am I averse to homosexuality and homosexual people? The answer is a resounding no. I was hugely in favour of the civil partnership laws, believing that every human being is of equal right, worth and dignity regardless of race, colour, creed, culture, sexual orientation. I believe that same-sex relationships should be afforded exactly the same civil rights and protections as hetrosexual ones.

On an aside I actually didn’t think the civil partnership act went far enough. It was originally sold to the public under the guise of ensuring legal protection for all those in a close loving relationship, be that platonic or sexual and in fact it has failed to deliver. I know of many people living together in a close-knit platonic relationship, who have no desire to go through a public ceremony/pledge of commitment that implies otherwise. What seems to be vastly unfair is where you have the situation of two quite elderly people, and I call to mind two elderly “aunts” here, who have lived together for over 50 years. They moved in together in the late 50s, when they were both young teachers and have remained living together ever since. Unless my parents have finally updated their will, they are still my legal guardians! At times of family trauma, such as when my grandmother died, or when my mother was badly injured in a car crash we were entrusted into their care. It never occurred to us as children to wonder whether or not they were gay. I’m not sure I would have understood what that meant anyway. Now one is in their late 70s and is acting as a carer towards the other in her late 80s. When one dies, the other will not be exempt from inheritance tax, nor treated as a next of kin with any legal rights, given that they have not chosen to formalise their relationship as being a same-sex one. There are plenty of other elderly people in this position, mostly relatives, such as brothers or sisters living together in the same property, often bequeathed by parents who will face eviction on the death of their sibling, being unable to afford the inheritance tax. This seems to me to be an unfair loophole.

So, why is it homophobic not to want to counsel those in same-sex relationships due to deep-seated misgivings about their relationship? In the case of Mr MacFarlane his misgivings weren’t irrational. They were based on his religious belief. Religious belief requires some element of belief without proof, as indeed does atheism, there is no proof that God does NOT exist, it is just that, a belief arrived at having weighed up and examined the evidence. Therefore no religious beliefs can be irrational if they have been arrived at after having weighed up the evidence and come to a certain conclusion.

To refuse to counsel same-sex couples is not the same as attempting to deny someone basic human rights. It is simply saying – my conscience does not allow me to do this. One could argue that the ends are the same, namely that the couple doesn’t receive the counselling, but realistically there are plenty of counsellors that would be happy to provide the service. My difficulty with this whole issue is that people’s religious beliefs are being dismissed as homophobic, i.e extreme and irrational aversion towards homosexuality when they are nothing of the sort. Mr MacFarlane was following his conscience in as much as he was saying, that led by his beliefs, which we have to assume were informed, he couldn’t be promoting and assisting in a lifestyle which he believed to be erroneous.

I can almost hear the shouts of “how dare you accuse this lifestyle of being wrong, see you are a homophobe, you HATE gay people”. No, actually, I don’t, nor I suspect does Mr Macfarlane. Nor does the Catholic Church for that matter. The Catechism says that homosexual people “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358). I hate to use these words because they are so vastly misunderstood but there is a need to differentiate between the person and the act, the sin and the sinner.  The Bible does not promote homophobia. We cannot in a just and fair society punish people for their sexual orientation.

Refusing to aid and abet a relationship or lifestyle that is against your own personal principles, does not render one a homophobe or gay-basher. However the refusal of leave to appeal has said that religious beliefs are irrational and that in the course of work you must abandon them.

One of the things I abhor is being told what I must think. I can’t bear it. It drives me mad. Being a Catholic does not been that I have been party to brainwashing or told what to think. To assume that does every single Catholic a huge disservice. If the Holy Father told me the sky was red, I wouldn’t automatically believe him. I’d try to see if I could understand what he was talking about, was he being figurative or literal? I wouldn’t assume he was right nor would I assume he was having a senior moment. I’d examine what he said, what he based this assertion on and come to my own conclusions.

This is why I take such huge issue with this judgement. We are effectively being told what to think. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus anyone with any faith are being told that this is irrational and irrelevant and we must behave and think in a straight-jacketed prescriptive way, devoid of any faith based ethical code in order to avoid discriminating against others or causing offence. To my mind, this is as intolerant as the prejudice/discrimination it is supposed to circumvent. It is Orwellian:

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Homosexuals should have equal civil rights, that is not in dispute. Those with religious beliefs should have the right to exercise them without fear of recourse. We need to get the balance right on this one. We need to ensure that people are able to examine their conscience and be granted exceptions having had a fair hearing, i.e. had the opportunity to explain their principles, the reasons behind them and examine whether or not they are based on fear or hatred. To deny Mr MacFarlane the opportunity to do that, is, I believe, discriminatory and a sad day for tolerance and diversity.