Saturday, 20 July 2013

Mabel: "I never got round to watching Glee...."

Mabel says he never got round to watching Glee (if you believe that), as he reminds us again of his membership of a "private" gym membership and his naked shower with Jeremy Paxman (the image obviously still impressed on his mind).

Wonder what Mabel turned to after watching endless repeats of The Wire, all on his own?

His tweets give a clue about his obsession.

The misery of modern celebrity is nothing compared to the misery of Mabel's private life.

Friday, 26 April 2013

Mabel bullies pro-life blogger

Caroline Farrow is one of our greatest advocates for the unborn - she not only believes the Church's teaching on the Sanctity of Life, she lives it and is prepared to suffer for it. As the Catechism says, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life." She asked Daily Telegraph journalists for help in bringing wider attention to abortion cases, and here's Mabel's response -



This is upsetting - it's a humble and faithful blogger against Mabel, the manipulative bully. We've seen it before, time and time again.




And then Mabel threatens her with Telegraph lawyers - an old ruse, but it works if you're feeling vulnerable -



Mabel the bully -



Fortunately, Caroline Farrow will not be bullied or silenced by Mabel -



When are you going to listen to the Holy Father, Mabel? When are you going to start treating people with respect, love and tenderness? Pope Francis said -

"Let us not allow omens of destruction and death to accompany the advance of this world! But to be “protectors”, we also have to keep watch over ourselves! Let us not forget that hatred, envy and pride defile our lives! Being protectors, then, also means keeping watch over our emotions, over our hearts, because they are the seat of good and evil intentions: intentions that build up and tear down! We must not be afraid of goodness or even tenderness!"

"Today too, amid so much darkness, we need to see the light of hope and to be men and women who bring hope to others. To protect creation, to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope; it is to let a shaft of light break through the heavy clouds; it is to bring the warmth of hope!"

Try it, Mabel. We're still praying for you, and love you.

Friday, 29 March 2013

Mabel discovers that he's a Pharisee


This is how Mabel greeted the election of the Holy Father, Pope Francis

 

With his usual bitter comments towards Archbishop Nichols


Disrespect towards Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor (and the usual camp obsession with fashion)

Rudeness at people's physical appearances 


And a plea for unity (--from Mabel!!!)


But in his first post on the Holy Father the mask slips -- we're back to 'liturgical fine points' (which he says he'll return to)


because there are 'clear grounds for concern'







Then Mabel hears that the Holy Father has broken with centuries of liturgical tradition and washed and kissed the feet of two women in the Holy Thursday Mass celebrated in the Casal del Marmo detention centre for young offenders, in Rome. This rite is reserved to men exclusively as stated in the circular letter "Paschales Solemnitatis" (Jan. 16, 1988) and the rubrics of the 2002 Latin Roman Missal. No.51 of the circular letter states: "The washing of the feet of chosen men which, according to tradition, is performed on this day, represents the service and charity of Christ, who came 'not to be served, but to serve.' Traditionalists believe this should be maintained, and its proper significance explained. They believe it makes sense to only involve men because during the Last Supper, Christ washed the feet of the Twelve Apostles, all of whom were male.

But hilariously, Mabel leaps to defend the Holy Father's spontaneous deviation from the rubric and Spirit-of-Vatican-II rejection of tradition by accusing 'traddies' of 'playing the role of Pharisees'.







O Holy and Righteous Mabel, who has been tediously tweeting, blogging and carping ad nauseam about the implementation of the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", suddenly discovers that he's been playing the role of a Pharisee for the past five years (at least).

It isn't too late, Mabel, to acknowledge your errors and hypocrisy. How can the Pope maintain discipline in the Church if he himself does not conform to prevailing ecclesiastical legislation? Things change -- it's called progress. Next time you go to Confession, try being honest with your priest. Then recite (with feeling) this Act of Contrition:

O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest my pharisaical attitudes, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell. But most of all because I have offended you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my judgemental, hypocritical, lonely and self-obsessed life. Amen.

Then do your assigned penance. You won't change overnight, Mabel, but your hypocrisy, inconsistency and arrogant judgementalism might begin to soften with the tenderness of Christ and Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Tuesday, 26 February 2013

Mabel knifes the 'gay sex' Cardinal


This is vicious and typically nasty stuff. Here's the text: "I'm convinced that what he did (if he did it) was harmless enough, but he may not have thought it harmless if he'd caught other priests doing it … at least until this week."

Note how Mabel quotes Stephen Hough - when he doesn't want to say something directly himself he hides behind the words of someone else. Cowardly - but that's his modus operandi. With no evidence whatsoever he juxtaposes 'Cardinal O'Brien' and 'gay sex scandal' in a prominent headline - which is designed to cause damage. The time is fast coming when someone else's name and 'gay sex scandal' might just appear in the same headline too. If the 80s can catch up with a cardinal, the 90s can certainly catch up with a hack. He just couldn't resist referring to 'senior clergyman accused of touching up young men after drink-fuelled "counselling" - bring back bad memories, Mabel?

And then we get this great theological insight:

"Celibacy is one of the spiritual treasures of the Roman Church, we’re told. Fine: let those priests who feel called to it take solemn vows. But a vocation to the priesthood is not the same thing as a vocation to celibacy. Untangle the two and Catholics can at least hope for a reduction in the sexual abuse of spiritual power (a feature of all religions, it should be stressed). A debate about married priests is of a different nature to one about women priests. The Church teaches that the ordination of women is an impossibility, just as Orthodox Judaism and Islam believe that women are barred from leadership by God himself; Catholics who disagree could save themselves a lot of time by moving to another denomination.

"Rome’s ruling is based on the teaching that Jesus did not ordain women. He did, however, ordain fishermen who had wives at home. The early Church had no problem with this. The celibacy rule for parish priests was adopted later, and never by the ancient Churches of the East. In Chapter Eight of St Matthew’s Gospel, we read: “And when Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying sick of a fever.” There is only one way Catholics can interpret those words: the first Pope was married."

This is Mabel - with his second-class degree in History and his doctorate from the LSE in cultic 'sociology' pretending to know about Catholic Theology. Stick to hair and frocks, Mabel. This is literalist exegesis - the Protestant spirit. But then Mabel does protest a lot, doesn't he? And when he's not protesting, he's accusing the Bishops of lying:
 
"When I covered religion for The Daily Telegraph in the early 1990s, I’d compare notes with my opposite numbers on other papers about the lies and half-truths told by representatives of the General Synod, Lambeth Palace and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference. We agreed that clergymen were as shameless as politicians when it came to dodging questions. The difference was that churchgoers, unlike voters, didn’t know that their leaders played fast and loose with the facts.

"Until the paedophile scandals broke, of course. Disastrously for the Catholic Church, revelations of diocesan cover-ups coincided with the same torrent of online information that did for the Scientologists’ reputation. Some of the media attacks on the Vatican were inaccurate – but Catholic spokesmen were powerless to correct them because their habit of lying to the press was so ingrained."

More 'pot, kettle and black' from dear old Mabel - his whole life's a lie.

Saturday, 5 January 2013

Mabel hopes the Church's teaching about homosexuality "will evolve"

This is what Mabel says about the Archbishop of Westminster, head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. Mabel says he is "always suspicious of +Vin's motives", mainly because Mabel's are always whiter than white and purer than pure in defence of the Holy Father and the Church's moral teachings.

But this is what Mabel says about the Church's teaching about homosexuality - that it "may evolve" - and Mabel personally believes (hopes?) that it will.

The Catechism teaches:

"Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (CCC 2357).

So why would Mabel hope that the Church's teachings on homosexuality will evolve? Has he met someone? Got back together with the guy who broke his heart? Or does he still listen to Beethoven all alone, watching endless repeats of The Wire? Come on, Mabel, tell us how the Church's teachings will evolve. Please explain why you're contradicting the Catechism.

Saturday, 15 September 2012

Mabel illustrates the "gay vote"

Mabel's chosen this picture to illustrate his views of the "gay vote" (with which he is very intimately acquainted). He's the Blogs Editor at the Telegraph, so he can derive whatever pleasure he wants from the pictures he chooses. He refers to two sorts of homosexuals who have views on "gay marriage": first, the "openly gay people" who don’t wish to trample over traditional religious beliefs; and second, those who are basically supportive but "are more ambivalent about it than they’d care to admit".

What about a third type, Mabel? Those who are "closeted" but pretend to be the infallible voice of orthodox Catholicism in the UK? You know - those who trawled gay bars and had "gay flings" even while they were Editor-in-Chief of the Catholic Herald?  I know you like the look of these guys - they're your fantasy type. You may have ended up with a broken heart, but that's no justification for living a life of lonely bitterness highlighting and picking on every minor fault in others.

Revealingly, Mabel writes: "Decades of identity politics mean that many young homosexuals truly are 'glad to be gay'; it’s no longer a desperate slogan, more a statement of fact. Although there is a homosexual subculture in the Conservative Party, for countless gay professionals voting Tory is something you just don’t do. Ever. But there are other factors to consider. One of the dirty little secrets of gay history, never referred to in “queer studies”, is that many gay people voted for Margaret Thatcher (and kept very quiet about it, as I recall)."

He "recalls"? Snigger.

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Mabel returns to his favourite topic - fashion

Again it's all about externals and appearances - because Mabel can't face the heart or spiritual realities. How many times did Our Lord tell His disciples to look beyond superficial worldliness and seek Him in the depths of the Spirit? Mabel can't bare to look there - his obsession with the outward form is a convenient distraction from his searing loneliness and hypocrisy. His abhorrence of "Protestant" vestments is just a projection of his own Protestant lifestyle. God loves homosexuals but Mabel can't quite bring himself to love himself - so he goes on living a life of bitterness, poisoning the anti-Christian Telegraph Blogs with theological ignorance parading as Catholic orthodoxy.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Mabel's doctorate



Every so often Mabel pours scorn over the professional qualifications of others, thereby indirectly (and quite purposefully) reminding his readers that he is himself a doctor (but with false humility chooses not to style himself 'Dr'). He's got a particular obsession with 'proper' doctorates, especially of priests and bishops. It's worth remembering that Mabel, who pretends to possess in-depth knowledge of Catholic theology and Benedictine orthodoxy, earned only a second class degree in history and has a second rate doctorate in 'sociology' from the LSE. His chosen field of research (for some reason) was 'apocalyptic belief' of Protestant pentecostalism. That must have been really spiritually enriching. He has no Masters degree in history or theology. He had to go the LSE because he didn't fulfil the entry criteria for an Oxford doctorate. You can make up your own mind if a doctorate in the sociology of wacky Protestant beliefs amounts to a 'proper' doctorate, but His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI probably wouldn't think so.

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Mabel and 'the love that dare not speak its name'

It's a fairly open secret that Mabel isn't one for the ladies. But he gets very touchy indeed when anyone aludes to his taste in boys. He likes them young. Perhaps not so young as to be illegal, but when it comes to appearances, that's quite a different matter. Mabel has been flirting on Twitter with a left-wing gay young man with whom Mabel has absolutely nothing in common in terms of religion or politics. So what's the attraction?
By his own admission, Owen Jones "looks a bit like a 12 year old". Mabel doesn't mind that one bit so he regularly sends out flirtations.
Which causes little Owen to reveal that Mabel actually tweets him rather frequently, which hasn't gone unnoticed, and the courtship is being received as flirtation.
You can imagine the frisson of excitement when Mabel sees that little cheeky wink and a smile, and when little Owen flirts back.
And so it continues, with Mabel fantasising about being 'caught' by a good-looking 12-year-old.

Which is undoubtedly corrupting of youth and quite contrary to the standards one might expect from a director of The Catholic Herald and defender of traditionalism in the Catholic Church.
So why is a 'scary right-wing blogger' flirting with a left-wing boy about 'the love that dare not speak its name'?

Monday, 9 January 2012

The 'poisonous effusions' of the Holy Smoke blog

It's surprising what you can discover about Mabel's bitterness and hypocrisy when you do a Google search. This was on the Heresy Corner blog, reproduced with permission:

Damian Thompson's "vicious and crazy" attack on Richard Dawkins

For reasons best known to himself, Damian Thompson has taken a break from his (rather premature) celebrations at the impending demise of the Church of England - and his own Catholic enemies, among whom is the retired cardinal - to launch an extraordinarily personal attack on Richard Dawkins. Under the heading "Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is vicious and crazy. The man needs help" he compares the distinguished evolutionary biologist to "a dribbling loony on the top of a bus" and describes his long-known opinions about the Catholic Church as "the ravings of a man who appears to have lost all sense of proportion". "Seriously" he writes, "is there something wrong with him?" Damian often questions the mental health of people who disagree with him, an ugly rhetorical trope suggesting smallness of mind. Regular exposure to the poisonous effusions of his Holy Smoke blog certainly does nothing to dispel that impression.

Thompson's house style of triumphalist, sneering, ultra-papalist camp - in which he is joined, day after day, by a claque of equally mean-spirited groupies and hangers-on - does more damage to the image of Catholicism than Richard Dawkins ever could. I've never been as offensive about any Christian as Damian manages to be, virtually every day, about his fellow Roman Catholics who happen to have different views to him about the liturgy, or politics, or the status of Joseph Ratzinger as the greatest being to occupy the throne of St Peter since the days of Gregory the Great. His reaction to the prospect of Anglo-Catholic defections to Rome has been very much in character: catty, obsequious towards the Vatican, vainglorious, snidely dismissive of both Rowan Williams and the "liberal" (by his standards) Catholic hierarchy in England, and crudely self-promoting.

The other day he was gloating about an impromptu encounter he had had with Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor in Westminster Cathedral during the interval of a concert. Having spotted the former leader of England's Roman Catholic community, his first thought was to text something sarcastic on his Blackberry. Unfortunately for him, Cardinal Cormac (who will have been well aware of the nasty things Damian has written about him over the years, but is evidently a bigger man) came up and greeted him warmly. Did Damian pass the time of day, enquire after the cardinal's health or share his thoughts about the music? Of course not. "There was literally only one thought in my head," he writes - how to embarrass the cardinal over the Anglican offer business, about which Cormac is believed to have had considerable reservations. Then, having achieved his purpose - "the Cardinal did seem stumped" - he slunk off. Charming. The blog ends with a dig at his rival from the Tablet, Catherine Pepinster, who had "a steely glint to her spectacles that told me that she, at least, was not in the mood for banter".

So what has Dawkins done to attract Thompson's displeasure? He's only gone and pointed out a few home truths about the church that disaffected Anglicans have been invited to join. And in the Washington Post, of all places (and which I'm glad Thompson pointed me towards; it's rather good). According to Damian, the Dawk called the Roman Catholic Church “the greatest force for evil in the world”. Except that, as PZ Myers points out, he didn't quite say that. He had been invited (on the WP's "faith panelists blog") to consider what major institution deserved that title, and responded that "in a field of stiff competition" it was up there among the leaders. He went on to draw a contrast with the Church of England, an organisation for which he has often expressed a perhaps surprising affection:

The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate. The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite. It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV. Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.
Harsh, but perfectly fair, and not worse than anything he wrote in The God Delusion. He might have said more: Dawkins didn't allude, for example, to the warm welcome given by the Vatican to the lunatic extremists of the Society of St Pius X - including Bishop Williamson, who just the other day fined €12,000 by a German court for his remarks about the Holocaust. (Damian approved of the welcome, but not of Williamson himself, blaming the resulting fiasco on Ratzo's treacherous advisers.) There will, I suspect, be more than a few Anglicans secretly cheering the Richard Dawkins on, wishing they had someone in their ranks with the balls to tell it like it is. As for RD's remarks about the miracle of transubstantiation: it's strange, isn't it, that Damian Thompson is able to present himself as a sceptic about dubious treatments, conspiracy theories and other manifestations of "counterknowledge", while subscribing to Catholic dogma at its most absurdly baroque? The Catholic Church, Dawkins goes on to say, is "a disgusting institutution" , "where buggering altar boys pervades the culture" (well, even cardinals have stopped pretending that was never a problem) and, now running out of priests,
is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."
Yes, I can see why Damian might have been a bit upset at that. But there's a difference in the two men's vituperation. Dawkins is rude about the Catholic church as an institution; Thompson goes after Dawkins personally, as he goes after all his enemies. Perhaps he found some of the remarks struck a little close for comfort. Dawkins for his part seems to have become imbued with the spirit of the Reformation (note, for example, the unsubtle Whore of Babylon allusion) . By the time he reaches his final paragraph he sounds like a born-again Anglican:

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.
Except, of course, the C of E wouldn't be so direct.

As for Damian Thompson, the man clearly needs help.

Wednesday, 3 August 2011

Mabel on double standards



Here's Mabel on 'Double standards in the English Catholic Church'. He opines:

"If, say, a group of enthusiasts for the traditional liturgy were to ask Westminster Cathedral for a Low Mass there every Sunday – a request which according to the Vatican’s own rules the cathedral should grant – then all hell would break loose (and freeze over before the Mass actually materialised, I bet).

"But if a diocese of England and Wales wants to mark the 50th anniversary of Vatican II with a lecture by a passionate opponent of Benedict XVI’s policies – well, that’s just fine and dandy because attacks on papal policies from the Left count as debate whereas the invocation of conservative papal documents counts as troublemaking."

Mabel's response, as ever, is a bit of camp stirring to make more trouble by broadcasting the issue to the whole country, undermining priests and bishops and damaging the reputation of Holy Mother Church, all under the guise of being the Holy Father's chief defender.

You have to laugh at (or pity) the man who preaches about double standards in the Church when his own life is compromised by a sea of double standards and he sows nothing but division and discontent. Keep taking the tablets, Mabel. You're as addicted to them as you were to the bottle. They won't heal your soul either, but they'll numb your conscience sufficiently to persuade you that you're a continuing force for good. If only you knew what those close to the Holy Father really thought about you. It's never too late, Mabel. Humility, obedience, peace, love - these are the fruits of faith.

Saturday, 9 July 2011

Mabel undulges in gay incest porn



Any excuse for a bit of gay porn, eh, Mabel?

He just posted another embittered swipe at a fellow journalist - pure schadenfreude (it's his life blood). While the original article from a blog called 'Jack of Kent' focuses on Johan Hari and Wikipedia edits, Mabel makes it a gay porn issue:



He makes a point of emphasising that he's omitting the porn and the direct link but helpfully includes everything you'd need to get the filth (and he'll have read a lot further - believe me).



One of his commenters has got him sussed:



Jack of Kent is clearly someone Mabel admires, and he is very critical of the 'nasty' way Mabel's used the gay pornography link:

Friday, 15 April 2011

"Mabel, I seem to have missed the conclave that elected you as pope."

There is to be conference for Catholic bloggers at the Vatican on 2nd May, and America, the Catholic weekly, has a message for Mabel:

'...Not a moment too soon. The Catholic blogosphere is an immensely powerful tool for evangelization. The best blogs point Catholics to news items that might be otherwise overlooked, to resources that might be underappreciated and to personal stories from Catholic individuals that can inspire, challenge and provoke. At its worst, though, the Catholic blogosphere is an arena for a self-appointed magisterium to engage in snarky commentary, judge without evidence and condemn with nary a thought for a person’s reputation. One wonders when reading these condemnations: I seem to have missed the conclave that elected you as pope. Or: When were you appointed to the CDF? Some Catholic blogs are also so vituperative that they barely seem Christian, and hardly present a good public face for the church. Who would want to join such a group? What’s more, a few bloggers seem solely interested in “inside-baseball” Catholicism (I'm guilty of this myself sometimes), which the Pontifical Council has noted. “One of the things we are a little bit aware of is that sometimes the Catholic blogosphere can become a bit of a ghetto…rather than engaging in the world outside,” said Richard Rouse, an official from the Pontifical Council.'

It's all pretty good advice, Mabel. We only seek to correct and rebuke you because we love you and care about the state of your your soul. Have you been invited to the ball?

Thursday, 27 January 2011

Mabel's missio dei


It's sometimes illuminating to read the comment thread under Mabel's posts, and today's (on church/mosque attendance) offers insights into his readership and their understanding of his mission.


Will he heed the words of the Holy Father, confess, seek absolution? Contritio, confessio and satisfactio. Come on, Mabel. The Last Judgement approaches, and "it will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life."

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

His Holiness speaks to those who criticize bishops



Yes, Mabel. Quite a few of us think His Holiness was talking to you.

It's never too late to change. It just requires humility.

Ah, but there's the problem.

Monday, 24 January 2011

Pope Benedict rebukes Mabel

His Holiness has sent Mabel a message for the 45th World Communication Day.

He says: "...the new communications technologies must be placed at the service of the integral good of the individual and of the whole of humanity. If used wisely, they can contribute to the satisfaction of the desire for meaning, truth and unity which remain the most profound aspirations of each human being."

He says with the internet that there is "the risk of constructing a false image of oneself, which can become a form of self-indulgence."

He emphasises: "...there exists a Christian way of being present in the digital world: this takes the form of a communication which is honest and open, responsible and respectful of others."

Significantly for Mabel, His Holiness says: "Furthermore, it is also true in the digital world that a message cannot be proclaimed without a consistent witness. on the part of the one who proclaims it."

He calls on Mabel to be 'respectful and sensitive'.

And not to permit his blog Profane Smog to become 'an instrument which depersonalizes people, attempts to manipulate them emotionally or allows those who are powerful to monopolize the opinions of others'.

His Holiness calls on Mabel to cease his immature self-indulgence and to be responsible, respectful, honest and discreet.

Mabel?

Are you listening to the Holy Father?

Coooooo-eeeeeeeeee!

Wakey wakeeeeeey!

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Mabel Thompson: the combover hyprocrite, beyond sorting out

According to a bitchy Mabel, Marco Rubio is the the 'Combover kid', and he's snidely told he'd 'better sort that out'.











But here's Mabel's combover in all its glory, completely beyond sorting out.











But the real cause of the bitchiness isn't the combover, it's because Marco Rubio isn't Mabel's kind of Catholic. Even to the point of obsession. So that makes him fair game.

Ah, Mabel. Isn't it time you grew up? Are hair and frocks the sum total of your camp obsession?