The Pope has declared that he is "profoundly ashamed" by sexual abuse performed by priests, saying:

Well I should think so too. He certainly couldn't be proud of or even accept them. And neither can he ignore this huge issue, as evidenced by his U-turn over discussing an issue previously declared to be "closed".

But that the Catholic Church have sexual abuse insurance seems to show that they know and accept that it could - or maybe even will - happen.

You also have to wonder who thought that the light-switch in the image on the right [via FAIL Blog] was a good idea, and whether or not they were a Catholic priest.

And now I'm just waiting for the next announcement from the Church of England in the continuation of the Battle of the Churches...

The Church of Google

The two main Christian Churches appear to be fighting some sort of media war: Who can say the most controversial thing and get the most column inches?

This round was kicked off by the Catholic Church, with Cardinal Keith O'Brien denouncing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as being "monstrous," "grotesque," "deathly" and of "Frankenstein proportion". Oh, and of course just plain immoral. As if non-Catholics can't possibly have morals.

Fighting back in the media is the previous front-runner after his Sharia law speech, Archbishop Rowan Williams has attacked the "greed" of Western nations. According to him, we are all dead inside because we want to live our lives in a way of our choosing. Has it slipped his mind that he's head of the Church of England - a powerful Western nation? It seems so.

So what is the Catholic Church going to say in return? Let's wait and see for the next episode of the Battle of the Churches...

Even though it's 17th March, otherwise known as St Patrick's Day.

This is because Easter is so early this year, the earliest in 200 years, and the week before Easter is the Holy Week and this takes precedence over any other religious holidays.

But even though St Patrick's Day doesn't exist in the Catholic Church's calendar, it will still be celebrated all over the world with a large number of drinks.

St Pissup Patrick's Day will still be celebrated, even if the Catholic Church is being a party pooper.

I see your peanut butter, James, and raise you a banana. Seriously, this guy uses a banana to claim that the theory evolution is bunkum:

Even after watching it several times, I'm still not certain whether or not he's being serious... though he probably is.

The Vatican has condemned the Harry Potter books by JK Rowling because in the books "witchcraft is proposed as a positive ideal" and claim that Harry himself is "the wrong kind of hero." The author says that the seven-book series has an "inverted and confused spirituality: a world where bad is good" and that they are characterised by a "vague, new-age philosophy."

What a load of utter bollocks.

The Harry Potter books are no more characterised by a "vague, new-age philosophy" than any other fantasy series. It is a fictional belief system set inside a fictional world - and far less anti-Christian than a great many other fantasy series can be seen to be. Nowhere in any of the Harry Potter books is any god mentioned, and Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry follows the traditional Christian-derived school term structure, with holidays at Christmas and Easter.

It is a fictional series set inside the fantasy genre. It is based on the traditional setting of that genre - good vs evil. Apart from the fact that the heroes use magic to save the world, there is absolutely nothing to set it apart from moral Christian teachings. That is what the Vatican should be focusing on - the parts with which it agrees, rather than the parts with which is disagrees, like the previous Pope had been.

Frankly, by picking on the Harry Potter books, the Vatican is creating a problem out of thin air. By demonstrating such a vehement dislike of them, it is shooting itself in the foot with young people - those who the series is aimed at - and predisposing them to disagree with the Catholic Church in particular, and the Christian faith in general.

To be honest, I couldn't give two hoots. Religion is a private thing. I don't care that Blair has become a Catholic and how "moving" the service was or whether Clegg is an atheist. Whatever anyone's religious beliefs are are simply their own and no-one else's. It matters not one jot to anyone else. So can we move on please?

The new leader of the Liberal Democrats doesn't believe in God. Like it really matters. Morality isn't reliant on religion in the slightest - you can be a good person as an Atheist, or a bad man as a religious fundamentalist of any persuasion.

However, that Clegg has revealed his lack of religion is commendable, even though it's likely to have any real impact in any direction, considering the minimal importance of religion in British politics - though I can't help but wonder whether this could have affected the very slim margin by which he won the Lib Dem leadership.

Breaking News: Gillian Gibbons, the teacher who allowed her class to name a teddy Muhammad, is to be released. The BBC are just reporting that she has been pardoned by the President of Sudan after the visit by two British Muslim peers - Labour's Lord Ahmed and Tory Baroness Warsi.

Fantastic news, and none too soon. Will they also acknowledge that it was a disproportionate sentence for her crime? Almost certainly not explicitly, but at least they have implicitly accepted it by releasing and pardoning her.

In the comments of my post over the disproportionate sentencing of Gillian Gibbons for naming a teddy bear "Muhammad", I have been alerted to this. You can buy your own teddy bear named Muhammad - with 100% of the profits pledged to help Gillian restart her life.

Pretty much the worst that you can say about this is that it's just a cute bear!

Daniel Finkelstein is wrong when he says that the sentence meted out to Gillian Gibbons for allowing her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad isn't disproportionate.

He is utterly wrong. The sentence meted out to Gillian Gibbons by Sudan is disproportionate. The reaction both legally and socially is highly disproportionate to the supposed crime of naming a teddy bear after a prophet.

After all, let's think about this. The teddy bear is named after an American President, and who among us didn't have a teddy bear that had it's own name? Why was that? Because the teddy bear is a children's toy much loved by every child who has one - which is pretty much every child. Even those who didn't have a bear per se would have had something similar. Quite frankly, naming a teddy bear Muhammad should be regarded as a good, pro-Islam, thing - especially when it is selected by the children themselves.

Yes, Gillian Gibbons was naive to let her children choose such a name, but she can hardly be blamed for the excessive and disproportionate reaction taken towards it and her by Sudan.

News that two British Muslim peers - Labour's Lord Ahmed and Tory Baroness Warsi - have visited Sudan to meet Gillian Gibbons and to press their case to have Mrs Gibbons pardoned and released is cheering. Hopefully their reason will triumph over the religious fundamentalism which has led to her imprisonment.

Well, he did say it!

Religion and politics should not mix. They are two separate things. Faith/religion is a personal thing, and should remain separate from the public political sphere. Whether a politician is a member of any faith/has any religious beliefs doesn't make any difference as to whether they can be a politician, so long as they place a divide between their faith and their political actions. Have beliefs, but don't preach them. Religion should stay out of politics. It has no place in it. Britain is, in practice, a secular society and this should be reflected in our politicians.

The juxtaposition of this with American politics is striking, especially considering that in America there is an official separation between the two

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

A young Jehovah's Witness has died after refusing a blood transfusion after giving birth to twins. It is, obviously, a terribly sad occasion for the entire family, especially since it should have been such a joyous one.

But they - and she - made a choice, their choice, with the full knowledge of the dangers. We can say that it is stupid etc. all we like, but the choice can only be made by her, her husband, and her immediate family. It is not up to us to approve or disapprove of their perfectly legitimate life choices. They have chosen to follow a particular faith that does not allow blood trandfusion, and chose to die rather than break it - a decision that I am sure was not taken lightly.

She, and they, amde their choice. We can certainly consider it wrong and stupid - and I do. But it was her choice to make, not mine or anyone elses. She had chosen to sign a piece of paper refusing any blood transfusion, and no-one has the right to break that, except maybe her husband if she was incapable at that point in time.

What if she had been given a blood tranfusion? How would she have felt if her right to choose to refuse treatment was overruled? We don't know - but her husband and family might. And they chose not to break her wishes.

Her body, her faith, her life, her choice.

Source: BBC

Well, my kind of Bible: