De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

I think many of us felt that Ian Duncan Smith, a Catholic, would be ideally placed in the new government to stand up for Catholic social capital. I don't think I am alone in feeling he has been somewhat of a disappointment in this regard. First we had him defying the Church's lead on so called "gay marriage", betraying the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, and now we have a further insight into the degree with which he is it odds with his Catholic identity. A couple of days ago Ian Duncan Smith hinted at an incredible piece of anti-family, anti-Catholic policy on The BBC Sunday Politics show. The plan is to limit child benefit payments to the first two children only, an idea first floated in 2012, before it was thrown out by Nick Clegg. The work and pensions secretary hinted the move was being examined by his party despite previously being vetoed by Downing Street over fears it could alienate parents. Duncan Smith said it could also “help behavioural change...

So Parliament turns its attention once more this week to the now infamous Same Sex Marriage Bill . The Tory Party themselves are now citing this Bill as one of several issues which constitute a growing crisis which threatens to destroy the Party from within. Bob Woollard, chairman of Conservative Grassroots, also told the BBC the same-sex marriage bill had "upset countless people and caused many, many people - hundreds, maybe thousands, to leave the party over this issue". The Party deals with this by simply jumping on the national band wagon of Liberal Fascism and labelling people with such views as bigots ( a la Nick Clegg ) or "swivel-eyed loons" as was reportedly commented by one senior Tory. Indeed, the rejection of Tim Loughton 's amendment last night demonstrates that this has always been about enforcing conformity not equality. I have spent a lot of time pondering, and worrying over this. I have written quite a bit about it here, for example t...

Wonders will never cease it seems! Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, has spoken out this morning, presenting  a withering analysis in the Telegraph of the current ' shambolic ' handling of the gay marriage debacle. He eviscerates David Cameron's election commitment to strengthen marriage as an institution and is highly critical of Cameron's understanding of the nature of marriage. He also, rightly, attacks the Prime Minister's honesty in the Conservative Party's manifesto. It could seem a little too little too late, but I have heard, and I do believe that Church leaders have been working hard behind the scenes to present a proper understanding of the argument in private. It now seems that they all are feeling a little betrayed by assurances received and are resorting to the only means of defending marriage left open to them, having instigated- and demonstrated the over-whelming public support for a proper understa...

The way I see the gay marriage debate is this. Pretty much everyone agrees that if two people love each other, that's a good thing. I agree with that sentiment as well. The problem is about what marriage is. Most people would probably say that marriage is what you get when two people love each other. It is a public commitment, an outward sign of the love they share with the rest of their community. Does that sound about right? Wrong! That's not what marriage is. The support and status that marriage entails is not a societal bonus for falling in love and agreeing to make a relationship lasting. That is not, of course, to say that love and romance are not an important part of marriage. But they are not the reason it has special status. If romance were the reason for supporting marriage, there would be no grounds for differentiating which relationships should be included and which should not. But that is not and never has been the nature of marriage. Marriage is vi...