The Earnest Importance of Being Gay

By some curious, yet not onerous, irony - Toad seems to have become, ipso facto, (whatever that means) spokesman for "The Gays" in certain quarters.

For he is not gay himself. However, as was at one time said about Jews, many of his friends are "Gay."

The word itself is tiresome, as we all agree - but what's the alternative? Queer? Not unfashionable among homosexuals themselves these days. But no, not for Toad at least. Gay it will be.

The gays are in the news all right. It seems they are all clamouring to get married. The "straights" on the other hand, appaear to have rather lost interest in what "Eton Dave" Cameron describes as "The Great Institution." (...and I won't make the old joke yet again)

More irony here with on one side people screaming, "Gays can't get married  - it's against the natural law!" and on the other people screaming "Gays are the only people who want to get married! It's natural to want to be married!"

Is it?
On the whole, the answer must be yes. People persist in doing it, often rashly, so it must be natural. But then,  people persist in being "Gay" often stubbornly, which is not natural, we are sternly informed. Hmmm.

So, the question for today is "Is being Gay "natural?"
If not, why did God (Yes, we're finally round to Him!) create, if that is the mot juste, so many of them?
Around 8% in the U.K. Toad has read; no way of confirming this figure, still, it'll do. One in twelve of us. Long odds but not astronomical. Enough to be the cause of trouble a good deal anyway.
Like with the Jews. (Among whom, Toad also has many friends.)

Second question for today: What is The Natural Law? Is flying in Boeing 792s natural? If God had wanted us to fly, wouldn't he have given us air miles? Does the fact that He doesn't (at least not to everyone) prove that He doesn't exist? No: Probably not.

Third question: If there is a Natural Law (which Jeremy Bentham highly doubted) is it wrong to break it?

Fourth question: Do miracles break The Natural Law? If they do, then why should not Gays?


I'm afraid there may be more questions to come on this highly overrated topic - maybe tomorrow.
The sun is finally up, and Reb is up and the dogs are up and baying in chorus like the wolves they once all were.
Times change, and today, I doubt if more than one dog is twelve is a wolf, and I've only got five, so I'm probably safe.
Walkies!

Going to Hell

Toad in dog Heaven. An "old" pic, as Bella (white) is now bigger than Harry (brown)

People must be wondering why Toad, (me) on CP&S, (Catholicism, Pure & Simple - it's neither, of course) keeps harping on about Eternal Damnation.

But maybe not – it's a concept of some significance if it happens to be true, and a shockingly revolting one if it isn't.

In fact, it's a shockingly revolting concept either way, when you think about it. Enough to give any child the heebie-jeebies! Did the Toadpole, at least! 

Lewis Carroll, a great genius and saintly man, whom Toad hugely admires, and who was an Anglican minister of sorts, said he could accept the whole of Christianity, apart from that one hideous aspect.
He probably had a few reservations about wicked old popes as well, but that's another topic altogether.

One of the CP&S team says that very likely only people who “Hate God” go to Hell.
Toad has great difficulty in understanding how anyone could hate God, but let's put that on one side, for now.
(Except what they might be hating is the idea of God. Which is clearly not the same thing. And anyway, their idea of God might be wrong. Probably is. What then?)

The real point of this laborious rumination, however, is that apparently attitudes are now considerably, relatively, different in the Catholic Church then they were some 55 years ago - when Toad was still in his teens.
Back then it wasn't necessary to “hate” God in order to be eternally damned – all that was required was to be in a state of mortal sin.

Which could be achieved, briskly and easily, by playing truant from Mass on Sundays, for no “good” reason.

How masturbation, and looking at a bikini-clad Brigitte Bardot in "Tit Bits Magazine," rated on the Mortal sin-scale chart is now vague to Toad.

It would be nice to be told if the Mass-missing bit is still relevant.

Oh, and this nightmarish scenario of devils endlessly poking you with toasting forks in an inferno could happen to anyone over seven, "The age of reason," an age, it would seem, that's still beyond Toad. To fill a small child's head with such pernicious nonsense , as the good nuns did to little Toadito was, in retrospect, a sin.
But it would be erroneous to imagine they saw it that way..

In Toad's youth, practically everything interesting was a sin.
Girls (in his case, not boys) were paramount. Just sexually lucky, apparently. As was dancing too close to girls. As was reading "The Three Musketeers," both activities which nowadays Toad does not have the slightest inclination to do. Tempi cambi.

More importantly, he was taught as a matter of absolute fact – not whimsical speculation – that no Non-Catholics were going to Heaven, and very likely not a great many Catholics either, particularly if they persisted in doing paper rounds on Sunday mornings.

Damned by association with the Press way back then!

Irony and prophecy seamlessly combined!

Someone else on CP&S suggested the idea of going to Hell for all eternity was “scary.”
Yes, the idea certainly is. The reality, if such it is is somewhat beyond scary. Way beyond. Insane, I think.

And the idea that a being of total goodness and all perfections could even consider not stopping someone, anyone, of manifestly inferior moral material to themselves, being sent there - is even scarier.

Because, if the sinner involved insists on going there - then he, or she, simply don't know what's good for them.

 

And should be pitied. And quickly put straight. Not infinitely casigated.

 

If my dogs insist on trying to run into the traffic, I prevent them. I want them to enjoythemselves and not feel constrained by the leads, but Free Will can go too far for their own good. And the idea that I treat them better than God treats humans is inescapable.

For what would God have to gain (or lose) from damning people?
Nothing. He does it for nothing, then?

So the hell with Hell.

But we shall see. Maybe. Quite soon. Possibly.

It's only natural...

The following is a recent post of mine on CP&S, to a friend on there called Kathleen. Self-explanatory, I hope.



“He (God) destined all material creatures for the good of the human race. “… says the Catechism.

As you know Kathleen, I’m normally and aimiably tolerant of the vagaries of religious thinking (What! You cry!!!) but in this case, after more reflection, I must hark back to your comment where you said:

“I must say that, believe it or not, every living creature has its place in nature, even mosquitoes! And certainly tigers do; grazing animals would increase too much and end up starving to death if there were no natural predators to keep their numbers down and eliminate the weak and sickly ones.
According to the Bible this beautiful and magnificent world was created by God and given into man’s hands to look after and care for.”

The Catechism quote above says nothing about man’s place in nature, as yours rightly and properly does.
The Catechism says “nature,” if you like, is there solely for our “good,” for our benefit.
That strikes me as disgusting and absurd, but we will let that go.

(I still can’t see what “good” dinosaurs ever did for the human race. Can we even assert that without dinosaurs there would have been no humans?
Not with any confidence, I suggest – but we will let that go, as well.)

The real question here is how, given that life has teemed on this planet for around two billion years, and human life as we know it for maybe 150,000 years – a minute scintilla of the timescale – how can anyone seriously assert that man’s function is, “…to look after and care for,” the other living creatures?
Living creatures were doing perfectly well before man finally got here.
On a time scale It’s like saying God put man in charge of the pet shop, which had been open since 9 am, one and a half seconds before the doors shut at 7 pm.

(How would you “look after” a cockroach, anyway? We’ll let that go, too.)

It’s also worth considering that tigers would go on happily culling grazing species regardless of whether man existed or not, as they did for countless aeons before “Homo Sapiens,” who is, we are told, “made in God’s image” evolved sufficiently to start polluting and fouling up the place.

It’s fair to say that without mankind, life on Earth would have been a whole lot less unpleasant.
In short, humanity has been a total disaster for this planet in many ways.

...Christ and St. Francis of Assisi and Rin Tin Tin (that's him) notwithstanding.

Camino Unreality

As most readers know, Reb and I live on the Camino Frances.
Have done for seven years now.
No need to explain what it is on here, I'm sure.

Lately, there have been some rumblings about happenings on The Camino and discussions on linked forums. The tone is often querelous, and generally involves - or relates to - money.
For several centuries, until maybe only five or six years ago, money was a secondary consideration to pilgrims and the people who provided them with beds and food - the albergues, in short.
In fact, the albergues were generally in monasteries, and underwritten by the charity of the wealthy ruling class.
As recently as 2006, when we arrived on the scene, to see a bowl with money in it at the albergue door with a message saying, "Take whatever you need, leave whatever you can," was not uncommon.
The bulk of albergues (also known as refugios) worked on a "donativo" basis - that is pilgrims would leave whatever contribution they could, or wanted to.
Which might be nothing.

But The Camino is becoming a victim of its own success. The number of participants (those who earn a "Compostela" at least ) has risen from 100,377 in 2006, to 183,877 in 2011.
The number of albergues and hostels catering to them has also zoomed up. Competition is sometimes fierce and occasionally vicious.

And the donativo ideal, overwhelmed by freeloaders and rising overhead costs, is a dead duck.

Spain is in crisis. The Camino is in crisis.

And possibly the reasons are not dissimilar. When we arrived in Spain, the European Union-driven economy was going gangbusters. Vast blocks of apartments and endless rows of terraced houses appeared apparently overnight, like the mushrooms in the few still-adjoining meadows.
This, even in places where the local population was already dwindling fast. Everyone thought the progress would never end, the money would always flow free. But wages were low, no one could afford the high-priced houses. Banks reined in the free funding, the developers went bust, then the banks went bust, too. Those new buildings stand empty now, their prices still well out of reach of the Spanish populace. One-fourth of the workers are unemployed. They´re saddled now with the debts of the banks that started the whole mess.

A different scenario, certainly, from the rapidly rising numbers on The Camino. But the reality in both cases was the unreality.

Yes, The Camino is not -  or is supposed not to be - about money.

Very few people open albergues with the intention of becoming rich.
But an extraordinarily large percentage of them seem to believe The Camino operates on much kinder and more forgiving standards than those of the rest of Planet Earth -- or Spain, for that matter.

And this is patently not so. A mortgage is a mortgage is a mortgage. Still, starry-eyed former pilgrims optimistically open albergues and guest houses and hostels, believing that God, or divine providence, or St. James will continue providing ever-growing numbers of well-off pilgrims to offset the cost of the regulation fire alarms, expensive emergency staircases, and stainless-steel kitchens.

Do any of them do any math before embarking on quixotic ventures involving "pilgrims"? Any more than they would buying a shiny new suburban villa?

The Camino, is for us, at least, a fine place to live: peaceful, endlessly interesting and often downright inspiring. And we have never regretted our own move here.
We were lucky, or smart. We paid cash for a beat-up mud farm in a dying town, instead of an overpriced suburban crackerbox with an expensive mortgage.
We don't rely on The Camino for a living.
And we never will. Please God. Or providence. Or St. James.




















..

Prudence rules, or should do

As you can see, this was written and posted yesterday, after a Thanksgiving lunch for  seven people: an Italian, a German lady, a Frenchwoman, a Spaniard, a Brit (me) and two Americans, Reb being one.
Spanish the lingua franca.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9691295/Nativity-donkeys-and-cattle-are-a-myth-says-Pope.html
Goodness! What a trying day Thanksgiving is turning out to be! First a lot of hoo-ha about trolls, then the above – and then yet another story from Pope Benedict claiming that Jesus wasn’t born on his birthday after all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9693576/Jesus-was-born-years-earlier-than-thought-claims-Pope.html

… All this on top of revelations that accounts of his (Jesus's) minute Mother-to-be wowing the assembled slippered pantaloons in the Temple with her reasoned argument for advocating skepticism regarding the metaphysical content of Logical Positivism, or whatever – were probably all made up by journalists.
What is the world coming to? is fast becoming Toad’s mantra.
And a lot of it is Pope Benedict’s doing.
The bit about the animals in the manger was particularly upsetting, as that seemed the most believable part of the story. If it was a manger, it was bound to have animals in it. Surely?

To be sure, none of thes above notions is essential belief for a Catholic. But they tend to come mixed in with other ideas that are considered essential.
To me, the idea that there were animals present at the birth of Christ is no more fanciful than, say, that God consists of three persons in one.
One what?
Simple Prudence suggests a certain amount of reserve concerning it all. (But then, she would.)

One of these days I'll get back to A Day In The Life Of Me. As soon as I can. Bit busy living, just now.

A Question of Upbringing?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/20/is-roger-scruton-really-a-christian

Found this very interesting:

1; Because it seems, in some respects at least, to relate to what we might call the "ethos" of Catholicism Pure & Simple (see right) notably a yearning for the Nostalgia of Things Effectively Past.

2; Because it also, almost paradoxically, reflects some of Toad's (that's me) admittedly ambivalent attitudes to Catholicism, which have clung to his hide like barnacles to a sperm whale.

One Day in the Life of...

I was unsure what to write about today, but my good cyber friend Kathleen, on CP&S, (see right) has bailed me out again.

She mildly complains - it is, I think, fair to describe it - about the excessive extent that I, and at least one other contributor on there, (Pastorious by name) "contribute."
She is a busy woman, she points out and finds it hard to keep up with the blizzard of often contentious, sometimes downright pernickety, posts we  "post," practically hourly, it seems at times.

And she's right. And has my sympathies.

Have we nothing better to do? Probably not.
I can only speak for myself, but certainly I don't have a very demanding schedule since recusing myself from the humbug mills.
I rise early, around six, generally.
In the chilly months I clean out the wood stove, and get it going. I feed Bob the Canary. I switch on The Mighty Wurlitzer, as the computer is known.
I reply instantly to any personal emails. Thankfully these are very few.
I make the coffee.
I wash up last night's dishes.
I go out and feed and water the hens.
I may then eat an egg or two of theirs.
I feed and water the cats and dogs and administer pills to the ailing ones, which are Mo, Murph and Tim these days.No easy task, involving rolling them up in slices of the finest ham, before trying to stuff them down their gobs.
I look to see if anyone has commented on this blog. Hardly ever. Hmmm.
I then look at the other blogs mentioned here, mainly CP&S, and reply or not, as I think fit.
All this, and dawn has still not broken.

All very boring, as you see, and yet essential.

I then read The Guardian and Telegraph on line, and am appalled by the trivial imbecility of many Telegraph stories, often involving deeply stupid "reality" television programmes featuring female M.P.s, and and resolve, if they ever start charging for it, that will be the same instant I'm out of there.

This post is already so long and dull that I will stop here and continue tomorrow with the main and essential business of the day: The Dog Walk; El Paseo de los Perros.