Which are the authentic believers: radicals or moderates?

In these troubled times, a debate has opened up about the role of religious fundamentalism. Which are the authentic representatives of their faith: the radicals who have been causing so much trouble, or the moderates who blend unnoticed into society?

A radical meets a moderate, or vice-versa.

It's a shocking thing for a blogger to say, but it is not the moderate Christians who reflect the teachings of their founder. As Mayor Sadiq Khan has said "Living in a big city, we must accept radical Christians, loving their neighbours, giving alms to the poor, visiting the sick, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak, and so on. But there is no need to panic."

Of course most Christians are anxious to deny that they do "good deeds". They just want to fit in with society, for example by approving of abortion, or homosexual relationships.

Nancy Pelosi explains: we can be Christian without taking Christ seriously!

But the police are aware that some Christian preachers - a minority, certainly - are radicalising their flock with aggressive slogans such as "Love thy neighbour", "Obey my commandments", and "Peace be with you". There are destinations such as Jerusalem, Rome, Lourdes - even Walsingham - where people are deliberately encouraged to take Christ's teaching seriously.

Lourdes - should we allow people who have been there to re-enter the country?

There are those who claim that "true" Christianity is the moderate sort practised by ordinary non-religious Christians - the ones who attend church once a year, get drunk, watch porn, fiddle their taxes, and tell lies when they feel like it; but they have a weak case. For, look at the Founder of the religion, and He was nothing at all like that. No, those irritating do-gooders who cause such a nuisance may actually be nearer to the true faith. And - harsh though it may be - we should judge a religion by its founder. Unless it is Islam.

A charismatic Christian - probably the most irritating sort.

The laws of Christianity

With the news that the Vatican is to have its own cricket team, it is clear that some readers would appreciate a handy cut-out-and-throw-away guide to the game of Christianity.

The laws of cricket, however, are well known.

1. In the game of Christianity, there are two teams, called the saints and the sinners.

2. The team of sinners is much larger than the team of saints, and beginners will usually start there. This is called original sin.

Howzat? An original sinner.

3. The object of the game is for the sinners to become saints. The saints will help this, but other sinners will try and prevent this.

4. Declaring one's innings closed is considered bad form, although not against the laws of the game. Causing someone else's innings to end is more serious, and the party responsible loses the game.

5. At various stages in the game a "tempter" will run up and attempt to get past a player's guard. Points are scored for batting away such attacks.

6. The player who is batting has a variety of scoring shots available, all with technical names such as praying, fasting, alms-giving, etc.

7. A cry of "Alleluia!" or "'Owzat?" will greet the end of an innings.

8. There is a Trinity of umpires. Two of these are out on the field, but one is pavilioned in splendour and girded with praise. Their decision is final.

The pavilion at Lourdes cricket ground.

---

Meanwhile, as the Vatican decides whether to recognise the controversial events at Medjugorje as apparitions of the Virgin Mary, it has been asked to adjudicate on another controversial event.

Probably NOT Mary.

According to a part-time mystic, Brother Eccles, he was on holiday in the village of Muddlejorge, when he awoke from a doze to see an old lady in the room with him, smelling of gin. She screamed "WOEFUL!" at him, hit him over the head with a bottle, and then herself fell to the floor and started snoring. Eccles blacked out for a while, and when he regained consciousness, the lady had vanished.

A Vatican spokesman said: "As in the case of Medjugorje, this is totally unlike the apparitions of the Virgin Mary that we have so far accepted - Lourdes, Fatima, Walsingham, etc. - in both the appearance and the message of the alleged apparition. However, 'Woeful!' is probably a good rendering of Mary's views of the current state of the world, so perhaps it was a genuine apparition after all. Who knows?"

Eccles's Auntie Moly was unavailable for comment.

---

Finally, the Vatican has withdrawn a papal medal where the name "JESUS" was misspelt as "LESUS".

I blame the Lesuits.

In fact, this is not the first time that J and L have been confused in religious circles. In the first century, in an attempt to appease the Romans, St John wrote "God is Jove". However, this was transcribed as "God is Love", and we have had to live with the consequences ever since.

A medieval French song

The manuscript of a previously-unknown French carol has come to light. It is attributed to the medieval monk Frère Graham Quendrique.

The underdog

Chien j'y sous-chien!
[The singer complains that he is always the underdog.]
Fille d'Islande vif dit farceuse clairet.
[A girl from Iceland says he is lively, but she is a jester who drinks claret.]

The girl from Iceland.

Blé ce spire rite Blaise!
[He invokes St Blaise to condemn a ritual involving binding wheat into coils.]
Ce tour hâtes Enfer!
[This prank hurries one to Hell!]

Beware pagan rituals!

Flou rit va flou!
[Confused, he laughs and goes.]
Fleur de naissance suive graissant merci!
[The flower denotes birth, but afterwards greasing (unction) may follow, thank God!]

Frère Graham looks forward to his deathbed.

Scène de four dur verte,
[The scenery is green, even if toiling at the oven is hard.]
Lourdes en laideur Pilate!
[He goes to Lourdes to atone for the ugliness of Pontius Pilate.]

The ugliness of Pilate.

---

H/T brother Ben Trovato for reminding me of Mots d'Heures: Gousse, Rames. An alternative translation of the song may be found here.