Orwellian society update: Ireland condemned by UN “human rights” commission

Why?

Because Ireland practices torture and genocide?

No, actually. Because abortion on tap is not available in Ireland and because this country is full of Catholic schools. From RTÉ:

Govt urged to amend human rights policies

Thursday, 24 July 2008 21:52

The UN human rights committee has called on Ireland to moderate abortion laws and to open up the Catholic primary school system to secular education.

The strictures were issued in summary observations by the committee on a report presented by the Government earlier this month on how they were carrying out obligations under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In comments on the report, it said the Government 'should take measures to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies so that they do not have to resort to illegal or unsafe abortions'.

It also expressed concern 'that the vast majority of Ireland's primary schools are privately-run denominational schools' with religion integrated into the curriculum, 'thus depriving many parents and children who so wish to have access to secular primary education'.

The committee said the Government should amend the Constitution to drop a compulsory religious oath for judges and allow them to make a non-religious declaration instead.

So much for the sovereignty of nations. These nazis will never rest until the entire world conforms to their twisted ideology. Is it not passing ironic that this so-called “human rights commission” should be a zealous promoter of abortion? What more despicable violation of human rights is there, than abortion? For if one does not have at the very least a right to life, one has no business claiming any other rights. Further comment is surely unnecessary.

But that was not all. The story goes on:

In separate comment, the nine-member body, composed of legal experts from a range of countries, said Britain should ease back on tough 'anti-terror' measures and take firm action to combat "negative public attitudes" towards Muslims.

Dhimwits of the year 2008, say I. The Islamofascists can call upon the services of no idiots more useful than these craven lunatics.

RTÉ suppresses politically-incorrect results of abortion poll

Communist: Comrade, you are oppressed!

Working man: What? No I’m not.

Communist: But you are! I am sure of this because I’ve read my political theory and you haven’t! Now stand back and I will liberate you!

Working man: Huh?

Communist: If you deny the truth, comrade, you must be a counter-revolutionary! If you’re not for us, that means you’re against us!

* * *

Earlier this week, Melancholicus linked to a poll on the RTÉ website which asked viewers whether it were time to overturn Ireland’s abortion laws. Melancholicus recommended his readers visit the site and vote No.

He had already done so himself, at which point most respondents were clearly in favour of NOT overturning this country’s prohibition on abortion—an encouraging result for anyone concerned to defend the lives of the unborn against the state-sanctioned slaughter that is legalised abortion.

Today Melancholicus was back on the RTÉ website, looking for coverage of an unrelated matter. While he was there, he noticed that the interactive poll on abortion laws had been replaced by one on property prices. Assuming the abortion poll to be now closed and interested in seeing the final result, he went to the poll archive page. There he found the results of a great many previous polls, even going back as far as March 2007, but this week’s abortion poll result was nowhere to be found.

What can we conclude, except that the final result of the poll displeased some pro-choice zealot at RTÉ and as most of those who voted were clearly in favour of maintaining Ireland’s ban on abortion, the result was quietly suppressed?

Those who run our media are all for public opinion when said opinion happens to coincide with their own, and they trumpet this agreement loudly in their newspapers, on the television and on their websites. They are all for democracy when it gives them the result they want. But when the public manifests a view that contradicts some aspect of politically-correct leftist orthodoxy, our dissent must be hushed, suppressed and swept under the carpet.

Is that what has happened in this instance?

It would be too much of a coincidence to think otherwise.

Cast your vote

A poll currently being conducted by the national broadcaster RTÉ asks whether it is “time to overturn Ireland’s abortion ban”.

Go here and vote No while there is still time!

Some further thoughts on liturgical revision

The attempts by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to arrive at an English rendering of the Novus Ordo that is actually an accurate translation of the Latin rather than an ideologically-rooted free paraphrase are certainly commendable, but to Melancholicus such efforts feel like trying to keep the Titanic afloat by bailing with a teaspoon.

If one is going to tinker with the New Mass at all, one should take a look at its several problems and correct the most glaring of them in one fell swoop. But Melancholicus supposes that the Holy See, following the time-honoured practice of the most successful liturgical revisers, wishes to proceed with this project slowly and piecemeal, lest Jesuits and other hippies be incited into open revolt by the sudden proscription of the banal and horizontal community love-fest that is their interpretation of the current ordo.

Definitive judgement must of course be reserved until we have seen the final, definitive text, but so far, judging especially from the favourable reports given it by certain trustworthy members of the clergy, the revised ordinary seems to be a vast improvement upon the original of 1970.

Two pertinent criticisms, though: the first of these is really outside the remit of translators, since Melancholicus is now talking about making adjustments to the Latin editio typica. This, of course, is beyond the competence of ICEL to arrange. But I notice we are still stuck with the exceedingly banal adaptation of a Jewish grace before meals that passes for an offertory in the new rite. No amount of accurate translation will repair a text which is likewise deficient in the original Latin; it has to be replaced instead. Perhaps this will be done at some point in the future, but as it is more than a simple matter of translation, we shall say no more about it here.

A second criticism, though, is within the remit of ICEL, and Melancholicus is disappointed that the committee has not seen fit (or has not been permitted?) to take a leaf out of the book of our Anglican cousins, for in the revised rite no provision whatever is made for the use of traditional language in the liturgy. The new version is certainly more elegant than its earlier incarnation, but almighty God is still addressed as you throughout, never as thou, except in the Our Father, a prayer which every practicing Catholic knows by heart—at least one hopes that some standardising zealot will not try to impose a “modern” version of the Lord’s prayer upon us, which would be absolutely intolerable.

An option for what the Anglicans call “traditional language” would go a long way towards creating a style of solemn, hieratic, liturgical English—which we completely lack in the Roman Catholic Church—and which could be used alongside the more pedestrian vernacular, with some Masses celebrated in English, and some in vernacular. The faithful could fulfil their Sunday obligations at one or the other, at their preference or convenience. Melancholicus thinks this an excellent idea, at least in principle—but he suspects that bishop Trautperson and his fellow travellers would suffer apoplexy at the prospect of Masses being said in liturgical English in their backyard.

*ENDNOTE: Melancholicus has seen what purports to be a copy of the proposed text of the “New New Mass”. In any case, he reckons this must be a now obsolete working draft at a much earlier stage of development, especially since the mistranslation of pro multis—which is supposed to have been amended if the reports are correct—is still present in its rendering of each of the four eucharistic prayers. Can anyone reading this vouch authoritatively for this document or the website on which it appears?

A new translation for the New Mass

From Catholic World News:

Vatican approves new English translation for Mass

Vatican, Jul. 25, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has given formal approval to a new English translation of the central prayers of the Mass for use in the United States.

In a June 23 letter of Bishop Arthur Serratelli, the chairman of the US bishops' liturgy committee, the Congregation for Divine Worship announces its recognitio for the translation, which had already won the approval of the US bishops' conference, despite strong protests from some liberal prelates.

The new translation adheres more closely to the Latin of the Roman Missal. Since the 2001 publication of Liturgiam Authenticam, the instruction on the proper translation of liturgical texts, the Vatican has pressed for more faithful translations of the official Latin texts.

Alluding gently to the fierce debates over English-language liturgical translations in the past decade, the Congregation for Divine Worship reports "no little satisfaction in arriving at this juncture." The letter from the Vatican is signed by Cardinal Francis Arinze (bio - news) and Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith, the prefect and secretary, respectively, of the Congregation.

The Vatican's binding approval covers only a portion of the entire Roman Missal. The entire process of translating the Roman Missal is expected to take at least until 2010. However, the prayers given the Vatican recognitio are the most common texts for the Order of the Mass.

The Vatican approval comes just after the US bishops' conference voted against approval of another installment in the series of translations that will be required to complete the overall project.

The new translation is not to be used immediately, the Vatican letter indicates. Instead the US bishops are directed to begin "pastoral preparation" for the changes in the language of the Mass. During this same period, the Congregation for Divine Worship notes, some musical settings for the text could be prepared.

Among the noteworthy changes that Catholics will notice when the new translation goes into effect are:

• At the Consecration, the priest will refer to Christ's blood which is "poured out for you and for many"-- an accurate translation of pro multis-- rather than "for all" in the current translation.


• In the Nicene Creed the opening word, Credo, will be correctly translated as "I believe" rather than "we believe".


• When the priest says, "The Lord be with you," the faithful respond, "And with your spirit," rather than simply, "And also with you".


• In the Eucharistic prayer, references to the Church will use the pronouns "she" and "her" rather than "it".


• In the Agnus Dei, the text cites the "Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world," rather than using the singular word "sin".


• In the preferred form of the penitential rite, the faithful will acknowledge that they have sinned "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault".

Throughout the translation of the Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer, the traditional phrases of supplication are restored, and the Church is identified as "holy"-- in each case, matching the Latin original of the Roman Missal.

This is, strictly speaking, good news, but Melancholicus finds himself unable to summon up even a modicum of enthusiasm for it.

In broad agreement with the words of a tired commentator over at the New Liturgical Movement, we might say these developments are (however positive), “too little, too late”.

It’s like a band-aid trying to cover an open and gushing wound. Like tackling a forest fire with a water pistol. Or better yet, like bolting the stable door after the horse has fled.

It is of course refreshing to see that the tendentious mistranslation of pro multis—which has exercised the spleen of many a trad at least since 1969—will now finally be corrected. Has it really taken them forty years?

But there remain so many other problems and difficulties lodged within the new rite that Melancholicus seriously doubts that it will ever be fixed—at least in the limited time left before there is no-one going to Mass any more.

The Novus Ordo—at least in its current incarnation of 1970s ICELese—is intimately familiar to those who attend it, week after week, Sunday after Sunday. They have absorbed and internalised its language, its rhythms, its outlook (and as a consequence they are no longer Catholic, but that’s a story for another day). They know it forwards, and backwards, and inside out. To start making changes—yet more changes!—will serve only to confuse and upset the faithful who have grown accustomed to the current order. This is a criticism made vociferously and repeatedly by bishop Trautperson of the Erie diocese. Now this same Trautperson (or Trautperdaughter, or whatever his inclusiveness wishes to be called) may be a screaming Amchurch liberal, but Melancholicus must admit that in this instance, he has a point. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The fact is that even if the celebrant sticks scrupulously to the text of the revised ordinary, congregational responses such as “and also with you” may turn out to be wellnigh impossible to suppress. The current incorrect ICELese is simply too deeply rooted in the consciousness of Mass-goers. Some more liturgically-aware (or slavishly obedient) persons may embrace the new form, but the rest will continue to mumble “and also with you”, even if only out of habit. A case-study should bear this out. Back around 1968, when Irish Catholics were adjusting to the vernacular Mass for the first time, the approved translation of Habemus ad Dominum was “we raise them up to the Lord”. In the official ICELese promulgated in 1970, this text was changed to “we lift them up to the Lord”. But Irish Catholics in the pews failed to make the ICEL-mandated transition once they had accustomed themselves to the original translation, and in Ireland to this very day when the priest says Lift up your hearts we respond we raise them up to the Lord.

This and similar congregational responses are likely to remain stubbornly in use despite the best efforts of lawful authority to correct them. Such is the power of habit and custom—and the power, also, of the vernacular.

Instead of trying to fix the deficient ICELese we have been sufficiently unfortunate to inherit from the groovin’, jivin’ and swingin’ decades, we should treat this, rather, as an opportune moment for starting to sneak bits of Latin back into the new rite. Extemporising entire prayers and gratuitous departures from the text of the missal are commonplace wherever the Novus Ordo is celebrated. These abuses are facilitated by the Mass being said in vernacular. How many celebrants and liturgists could be so “creative” if they were required to compose their nonsense in Latin? Similarly with congregational responses—we have no hope of replacing the vernacular “and also with you” with the vernacular “and with your spirit”, so why not simply go back to Dominus Vobiscum / Et cum spiritu tuo in Latin? Everyone either already knows—or can very quickly learn—the proper Latin response et cum spiritu tuo. By constrast, nobody knows the Latin for “and also with you”.

And now after all that, what point is there in Melancholicus trying to make this reasoned argument? The foolish boy. Doesn’t he realise that the Novus Ordo changes all the time, even the words used in its celebration, at the whims of the celebrant and whoever else happens to have a speaking part? And that it is fair to say that most Catholics in the pews either do not notice these aberrations, or are not disturbed by them?

So what is the point, even, of trying to fix the many infirmities of the Novus Ordo? Is it not better to let it die a natural death?

Religion of Peace update: Qur’anic protection racket in the Philippines

From Catholic World News:

"Muslim warriors" threaten bishop in Philippines

Manila, Jul. 24, 2008 (CNA/CWNews.com) - A Catholic bishop in the southern Philippines’ Basilan province has received a letter from self-described “Muslim warriors,” possibly linked to Abu Sayyaf, who are threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Further, authorities are seeking the return of three adults and two children, all Catholics, who were kidnapped in the same area this week.

On July 19 Bishop Martin Jumoad of Isabela sent a copy of the threatening letter to Church-run Radio Veritas in Quezon City, UCA News reports. Bishop Jumoad told UCA News that a student at Claret College in Isabela was told to give the letter to the school secretary who could pass it along to the bishop.

The writers of the letter claimed to be “Muslim warriors” who “don't follow any laws other than the Qur'an.” They say the bishop should convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax, called a jizya, to their group in exchange for protecting him “in the place of Muslims.” If the bishop refuses, the letter threatened, “force, weapons or war may be used” against him. Citing bombings in other Philippines cities, the letter said he should not feel safe even if protected by soldiers.

Bishop Jumoad was given two mobile cell phone numbers and told he had fifteen days to respond. The letter bore the two names “Puruji Indama” and “Nur Hassan J. Kallitut,” both of whom were titled “Mujahiddin.” The letter was accompanied by a letterhead in the local dialect that said “Al-Harakatul Islamiyya.” The bishop said he has seen the phrase “Al-Harakatul” in kidnapping incidents in Basilan involving the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. He also reported that other Catholics have said they are receiving threatening letters. “Bishop, we are disoriented and we cannot sleep. What is our reaction to this?" they have reportedly said.

On July 21 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’’ CBCP News reported that three adults and two children who are members of a parish in Basilan had been kidnapped from a public jeep. Provincial administrator Talib A. Barahim on Tuesday told UCA News that no one has reported receiving a ransom demand.

Muslims who commit violence were rebuked at a joint conference between Catholic bishops and Muslim scholars on Monday in Manila, where Hamid Barra, the Muslim convener of the conference, underlined Islamic belief in the sacredness of life.

“It is God who gave life; he is the only one authorized to take life,” he said.

Barra, an Islamic law expert, explained that non-Muslims protected by an Islamic state are required to pay the jizya tax, which is used to support the needy, but no such payment is required in a non-Islamic state.

As these events are taking place in the far-off Philippines, an exotic foreign land which Melancholicus (and presumably most of his readers) has never visited, we tend to read these stories, frown disapprovingly, perhaps say a prayer for the unfortunate victims, and then forget all about it.

But how long, gentle reader, before similar events begin taking place in western countries? There are already places much closer to home in which hot-headed fanatics and Qur’anic bullyboys feel themselves entitled to behave whatever way they want towards the indigenous inhabitants without fear of rebuke from the law—or if the law gets too close for their liking, they look forward to the day in which they can overturn western democracies and install their hideous sharia.

These fanatics cannot be reasoned with, and they are no respectors of persons, property, laws or custom; there is only one language that they understand. The west keeps making the mistake that these people think as we do, that their reasoning processes and our reasoning processes are identical. Not so. With them there is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, never mind religious liberty. Whatever they find in their Qur’an—or think they find in their Qur’an—is used as an excuse which justifies all kinds of inhuman and criminal behaviour.

Under Islam, as under Communism, there is no “opt-out” clause exempting non-Muslims from the dreary yet violent Orwellian society these savages would impose upon us if we let them. It has happened in parts of Nigeria, and in parts of the Philippines also. Sharia is already clandestinely practiced in Britain, and the situation has become so grave that sections of the British government are giving serious consideration to recognising ‘aspects’ of sharia in British life. More fool they if they do.

Notice that at the conference in Manila referred to at the end of the story, the Mahometans wheel out one Hamid Barra, a “moderate”, who obligingly wrings his hands and deplores the violence, cocksure that all us dhimmis will be reassured that Islam really is a religion of peace after all, and that its violence is an aberration.

Melancholicus is not impressed by these “moderates”. In his eyes they are just as guilty as the terrorists for whom they make excuses.

Why do they not condemn the Islamofascists? Why do they do nothing to stop them?

It is because they too are Islamofascists. They are in agreement with the aims of the extremists. They are just more subtle regarding the means whereby those aims are to be achieved.

The difference is only in degree, not in kind.

Ecce homo

This professor of biology at the University of Minnesota Morris has garnered to himself notoriety after claiming to have desecrated a consecrated host by piercing it with a rusty nail and afterwards casting it into a waste basket along with old coffee grinds, a banana peel, and a few torn pages ripped from the Qur’an and from Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion.

One should think that an intellectual person over the age of fifty holding a professorship at a distinguished university would be, well ... more mature than to stoop to such juvenilia. As Jimmy Akin argues—and Melancholicus is in perfect agreement—this man has fundamentally compromised himself as an educator, and has made himself unsuitable for employment as an educator.

How he obtained possession of the host is not known. Of course it must be borne in mind that there is no proof this egregious stunt actually took place beyond what the fellow claims on his webpage. For all we know to the contrary, he might just be having a laugh at the expense of the righteous working themselves into hysteria at the prospect of such a sacrilege.

But supposing the reports are true ... Mr. Myers apparently didn’t stop at the Blessed Sacrament, but included the Qur’an and Richard Dawkins in his little party piece. Consistency, I suppose, arising from his dictum that “nothing must be held sacred”, not even Richard.

Nothing must be held sacred? As the Waffler wryly observes, “I can't help wondering what Prof. Myers reaction would be if someone dug up, say, his mother's corpse and used it for a hatstand”.

As we might expect, Mr. Myers will not suffer any negative repercussions from having desecrated the Blessed Sacrament, at least not in this world. He will retain his job, and life will go on much as before. He might not even suffer consequences in the next world, for if the fellow truly believes in his heart of hearts that there was nothing remarkable about the host he desecrated, that it was simply, as he put it, a “cracker”, he cannot be guilty of sacrilege, at least not formally. The Lord Jesus Himself said of His tormentors, even as they crucified Him, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” The outrage of the faithful will cool, and the incident will be forgotten.

But will it? The outrage of the Catholic faithful will cool, certainly. But let us remind ourselves that Mr. Myers also dishonoured a copy of the Qur’an, and the kind of faithful who put their trust in that particular book are seldom disposed either to forgive, or forget.

Well with that he’s surely sealed his fate. Let the Mahometans kill him.

Humanae Vitae at 40

Forty years ago on this day Pope Paul VI issued what really ought to have been a pretty unremarkable encyclical letter, all things considered: Humanae Vitae, on the transmission of human life and on sexual ethics within marriage.

Unremarkable because Humanae Vitae contained nothing new. Its teaching ought not to have been a surprise to anyone endowed with a Catholic sense of things. Pius XI had already condemned contraception and the contraceptive mentality in Casti Connubi (1931), as a response to the Anglican bishops’ approval of contraception at the Lambeth conference of the previous year. What could be more natural, therefore, than that Pope Paul should uphold the constant teaching of the Catholic Church on married life and human sexuality? This is what he did, and his reiteration of the Church’s constant teaching was greeted by howls of protest and dissent, not only by the secular world but even by priests, religious, theologians and even bishops.

1968 has been described by some as the year in which the Church fell apart. Anne Roche Muggeridge in her book The Desolate City, refers to Humanae Vitae as the triggering incident which allowed the revolution within the Church to emerge full-blown into the open, and openly to defy the authority of the Pope, the Holy See, Canon Law, and indeed the entire doctrinal and liturgical tradition of the Church across two thousand years.

Forty years later the revolutionaries are still in a state of defiance and open revolt—a state which some of them still describe, even today, as “loyal dissent”, an oxymoron if ever there was one. But today they are less confident, less sure of themselves, less convinced that the future belongs to them and to their fellow secularizers within the Church. For forty years on, as one might expect, they have aged considerably; they have not achieved the overthrow of Catholicism, for which they strove; and most ominously of all for their hopes of success, they have inspired none to follow in their footsteps and take up the cudgels in defence of peace, love and rock ’n’ roll once they have retired or passed on. They look—and sound—like relics of the groovy ’sixties and ’seventies, outdated tie-dyed hippies still tripping on the spirit of Vatican II (or should that be the spirit of Woodstock?). They are so completely contemptible that no one today—not even those thoughtless youth most in agreement with their heresies—wants anything to do with them at all.

Of course the most infuriating thing about the dissidents’ revolt against Humanae Vitae is that—as in every other area in which they have challenged Church teaching—the dissidents are quite simply wrong. They have backed the wrong horse—one that will not even pass the post, never mind win the race. Contraception is NOT a good thing. While it might at times be convenient for individuals, it is ruinous for society. There is not one country in the entire European Union—apart perhaps from Malta—which is producing sufficient children to replenish its population. This means that population is falling across the EU. The birth rate must be at least 2.2 children per woman if a given population is to be sustained. This is what is known as the “replacement level”. No EU state—and certainly not Ireland, which has embraced the contraceptive culture with gusto—has a birth rate anywhere near replacement level. Some states—Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece, for instance—have birth rates so alarmingly low that these countries will assuredly experience dire economic and social problems in a generation or two.

A low birth-rate spells disaster for society. It always means more older people and fewer young. As the population ages, and begins to retire from the labour force, there will be fewer younger people available to meet the demand for workers and to keep the economy moving. Fewer workers means the state has a much reduced tax revenue—but not reduced costs, since there are now disproportionately large numbers of older people requiring pensions and expensive medical care. At a certain point, in order to avert the unsavoury prospect of an unsustainably large proportion of society being dependent on the support of an insufficient few, the state will begin to take certain measures. Old or chronically ill people requiring constant and costly care, will be required to be “put to sleep”. Able-bodied elderly people will not be permitted to retire at 65, but be required to remain at work for several years more. And the deficit in the working population will be further relieved by importing young immigrants from the third world, not a few of which will profess the religion of Islam. These latter, of course, will have more than 2.2 children per woman, not having embraced the contraceptive culture that has already sounded the death-knell of the west. Over time, the proportion of Muslims in the population will steadily increase—as it is in France, Britain and the Netherlands—with further chaos and destabilisation the only result of such a process.

We are already seeing and living through the endgame of the contraceptive mentality in so many different countries in the west; but will anyone sit up and take notice? Or are we now too firmly attached to playing God with our marriages, and with our children?

When one practices contraception, especially if one is aware of the Church’s teaching on the matter, one does not please God; one pleases oneself. To persevere with one’s own will against the holy will of God is always—in whatever matter—to invite catastrophe. Those who in the ’seventies, ’eighties, ’nineties and today took it upon themselves to have but a single child—or even no child at all—are precisely the same generation that will most feel the pain when the looming demographic crisis finally hits home. They themselves will be euthanised for purely pragmatic reasons by the same offspring they raised to be godless and secular, under the same laws permitting abortion and euthanasia for which they will have striven so hard to keep on the statute books. As all historical precedent has shown, wherever contraception is approved and practiced, the legalisation of abortion is sure to follow. For abortion is in the final analysis simply an extension of contraception, one that seeks to remove a conception rather than merely prevent it in the first place. For if one can in so cavalier a fashion interfere with human life at its very beginnings, why not also at its end?

Pope Paul was prescient. Humanae Vitae is the true teaching of the Catholic Church and may not be gainsaid without consequences, either in this world or the next. Defy it at your peril.

You have been warned.

Just a note to say I'm still alive

To my few faithful readers that have persevered in visiting this blog over the last three weeks in the hope of finding some fresh posts for their entertainment, all I can say is ... sorry.

I have rather a lot on my mind at present, and this has rendered me somewhat uncommunicative and less inclined to post.

This is unfortunate, since there are so many fascinating things going on in both Church and State at the present time, not to mention the catastrophe now snowballing through the Anglican Communion ... but personal circumstances being what they are, I am preoccupied and unable to reflect on anything else except that which preoccupies me.

I am meeting my beautiful fiancée this evening—she is in Ireland at present—and she will doubtless notice how preoccupied I am and invite me to explain.

So concerned souls may like to offer a prayer. Or two. Or whatever. In any case, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. For regardless of personal circumstances, life—and Infelix Ego—must go on.

Faithfully yours,

Infelix ego, Melancholicus, peccator

Accidents and the holy eucharist

Sometimes they happen. It’s a fallen world.

Melancholicus has read of instances of hosts being found, unaccountably, on the floors of churches, between the pages of missalettes, under pews, or even—what sacrilege—in the trash.

These last, especially if the sacred host winds up in the trash, cannot reasonably be described as accidental.

Melancholicus remembers seeing a parish priest doling out holy communion at Sunday Mass, and not even noticing that a host had slipped to the floor at his feet. Fortunately, a young woman waiting in line had noticed, and picked the host up and returned it to him. He replaced it in the ciborium and went on doling out communion. None of the traditional rites of purification prescribed in the case of a host that falls was followed in this instance, but to be fair, these rites are no longer mandated by liturgical law.

It is really quite amazing. No wonder so many Catholics regard the Blessed Sacrament as no more than a wafer, when they see it treated with such casual regard even by their priests.

Back in his pew after communion, Melancholicus tarried in the church when Mass had ended, as is his wont, offering his private prayers up to the Lord. He loves the silence of the church after Mass when the last members of the congregation have departed. Sometimes he shares the quiet of the church in these moments with the cleaning lady, who potters about the sanctuary and dusts the statues and shrines when the lights have been switched off. This particular Sunday, the cleaning lady was moving about the pews with a brush, sweeping the floor. Melancholicus was reciting his office.

The sweeping drew nearer and nearer, until the cleaning lady was practically only a pew in front of Melancholicus, whereat he noticed her bending down and retrieving an object from the church floor. It was round, white, flat and about the breadth of a €2 coin.

It was, of course, a sacred host.

We looked at one another in startled amazement. She did the only thing she could do; she received as reverently as she could, under the circumstances. Melancholicus was upset, this being his first encounter in the real world with the Blessed Sacrament thus carelessly discarded. He closed his breviary and made some prayers of reparation, but was so filled with distress and repugnance that he could not stay in the church but rose almost at once to leave. In the church porch he addressed the cleaning lady.

“Do you often find hosts on the floor of the church?”

“Every now and then,” was her reply. “Sometimes it’s children, and of course it’s because of communion in the hand, but you really don’t know what some people are up to.”

She really hit the nail on the head. The shoddy catechesis which prevails in our schools has ensured that Catholic children grow up without the slightest knowledge of what the eucharist really is. Dare we be surprised if such children then discard the host in the strange places it has turned up ever since the whole liturgical reform debacle was first imposed?

But the most nefarious culprit in these desecrations is the abominable practice of communion in the hand, which continues to be permitted in practically every diocese, despite the accumulating mountain of evidence that it has greatly facilitated countless sacrileges as well as an incomparable loss of faith among churchgoing Catholics.

Consider this a plea, gentle reader, for the restoration of the traditional method of receiving holy communion, with the reverence and decorum attached thereto. If you are a Catholic, and are not already doing so, please consider refraining from receiving the host in your hand. Please insist only on receiving on the tongue, even when this is difficult, or an occasion of inconvenience. Please insist on receiving only from the hands of a priest; leave the so-called ‘extraordinary ministers’ well alone. If you are yourself an ‘extraordinary minister’, please desist from being so immediately, no matter how fulfilled, spiritual or useful your function may make you feel. Please take care to educate your children properly on the truth about the blessed eucharist; don’t leave it to their school—their school won’t deliver. Please offer up whatever difficulties and inconveniences you may experience as a result of putting these recommendations into practice in reparation for outrages and sacrileges committed against the most holy sacrament of the altar. If more and more people insist on the traditional method of communicating, their example will influence others, and little by little the execrable practice of communion in the hand will die out.

As communion in the hand dies out, sacrileges against the blessed eucharist will become less frequent, for the two are inextricably connected.

Twenty years ago today

Whatever the reader may think of the above-pictured event, there is no doubt that it sent a message straight to the heart of the conciliar church. It is possible, likely even, that the oft-cited ‘state of emergency’ did indeed exist in the late 1980s; the Society of St. Pius X was at that time the only priestly organisation that was training priests for the old religion and, as it turned out, Archbishop Lefebvre would be dead three years later. Under such circumstances, it may be argued that the consecrations were necessary. The question of the protocol rejected by the Archbishop shall not be entered upon here.

But what of now? What prevents you, O bishops, from returning to full communion with the Apostolic See?

O, horrible! O, horrible! O, most horrible!

Further to my post on the forthcoming Eucharistic Congress in Dublin below.

We—the Catholic faithful of this island of Ireland—have at least four years to prepare for it. Thank God for this time; let us not waste it. Let us petition the archdiocese of Dublin to the end that the whacked-out, wild-eyed, Vat2-hugging, media-loving, greying boomer neo-litnik slimeballs shall not crawl out from under their respective rocks and be granted the liberty to hijack what should be a solemn and sacred occasion and turn it into the sort of impious parade of contrived, narcissistic, self-worshipping, perverted, pseudo-catholic, anti-liturgical, pop-arty nonsensical conciliar goof-ballery that we are horrified to discover was inflicted on the recent Eucharistic Congress in Quebec.

Go here and here if you want the gory details.

But if the conciliar church should go ahead with its own blasphemous programme—as it will, despite the anguished pleas of the faithful; Melancholicus finds it remarkable how the conciliar church blathers on and on about being a 'listening' church, seeking to 'collaborate' with the laity, but then turns around and savagely upbraids lay people for daring to criticize the non-Catholic nonsense that goes on routinely in their parishes and dioceses—faithful Catholics should boycott this impious event and should neither by their attendance give credibility to it, nor seem thereby to signal their approval of its juvenilia.

Pray God that the conciliar church may not hijack the Eucharistic Congress, an event which belongs to Christ and to the Catholic Church, not to drivelling heretics and secularizing fifth-columnists. Pray God also that it may please Him finally to restore to us the religion of our fathers, that the Church may be to us once more the spotless bride of the Lamb, and that He might remove from our midst the suppurating carbuncle that is the conciliar church, an institution that is nothing less than the ecclesiastical version of haemorrhoids, a hideous changeling smeared with excrement and unbeholdable offals, that, having slouched towards Bethlehem to be born, now usurps even the cradle of the Divine Infant Himself.

Melancholicus now thoroughly regrets that this sacrilege against Our Lord’s greatest gift to His Church will take place in Dublin.

What a contrast it shall be to 1932!

O horrible, O horrible, O most horrible!

I am lost for words.

2012 Eucharistic Congress to take place in Dublin

This announcement comes from the Catholic Communications Office in Ireland. Melancholicus has added his own comments below in red.

Dublin to host the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in 2012

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has announced today (22 June) that Dublin will host the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in 2012.

Pope Benedict's announcement was broadcast live from Rome as part of his homily during the final Mass of the 49th International Eucharistic Congress, the final event in a week-long Church celebration in Quebec city.

Attending the Congress in Quebec city, Cardinal Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, welcomed the news: "On behalf of the Catholic faithful of Ireland, we are honoured and humbled that the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has chosen Dublin to host the 50th International Eucharistic Congress in 2012. While the theme for the next Congress has yet to be finalised, we are deeply conscious that 2012 also marks the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council [Melancholicus has grown weary—and more than a little annoyed—with the profoundly misplaced awe in which the last council is held by so many of our fathers in God. Why must they always refer EVERYTHING back to it, as though it were the summit and source of all revelation? Can they not place it in its proper perspective as merely one (decidedly mediocre) council among twenty others that have taken place in the history of the Church? I fear we shall not have a restoration of a true sensus fidei until bishops and archbishops are no longer blinded by the glorious and heavenly light they imagine streaming forth still, after nearly half a century, from The Greatest Council Of All Time^TM].

"The purpose of the Congress is to deepen our knowledge of the Eucharist which in itself is central to our Catholic faith. The Church received the Eucharist from the Lord. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the life of every follower of Jesus. We ask the faithful to pray to the Holy Spirit and that its work will lead us all to a greater appreciation of the presence of Jesus in our midst, for love of us, in the gift of the Eucharist [Sound sentiments indeed. But is it not passing odd that it is here thrust upon the Holy Ghost to repair the damage wrought by the Irish bishops' own catechetical and liturgical policies ever since 'renewal' was thrust upon us? I guess it is left to Daddy to clean up the horrendous mess after the kiddies have spent the last forty years playing in their own faeces. Do these prelates not have any inkling why the knowledge and practice of religion among the Catholic faithful in this country is at an all time low, or why esteem for the Eucharist has all but vanished from our churches? Our shepherds are supposed to teach us the truth about the Eucharist. This is not best served when expensively-produced catechetical pap fails to pass on the truths of the faith to Catholic schoolchildren, or when churches are 're-ordered' in such a way that the tabernacle is banished to the sidelines, or even to a glorified broom closet. Likewise, reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is not well served when the sacred sacrifice of Calvary is masked beneath a tasteless modern(ist) liturgy redolent of a community jamboree. Who do the bishops think they're fooling? If they're fooling anyone, it's most probably themselves].

"The hosting of the Congress in Dublin will be an international event. The celebration will attract thousands of pilgrims and will enable Catholics at home and abroad to meet, pray together and discuss issues of faith.

"This is the second time that Dublin and Ireland plays host to the International Eucharistic Congress. The 1932 Congress in Dublin was considered an organisational success and it publicly showcased Catholic faith in the newly established State. We live in different times now and it is our hope that the 2012 Congress will be an opportunity for the Catholic Church in Ireland to both reflect on the centrality of the Eucharist at the heart of our increasingly diverse community [Merely to 'reflect on the centrality of the Eucharist', without explaining to the thoroughly confused and de-catechized Catholics of our time what precisely the Eucharist is and why it is so important? Melancholicus here prophesies that the 'increasingly diverse community' will receive far more extensive consideration than Catholic teaching on the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass], and, to give renewed impetus to the living of faith [would that be the Catholic faith or the conciliar faith, your worships?].

"Our planning for the 2012 Congress will be guided by Article 20 of the Statutes of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses (1986), which stipulates that: 'In preparing a Congress, emphasis is laid mainly on an intense catechesis on the Eucharist as the Paschal Mystery of Christ…, on active and conscious participation in the Liturgy…, and on a careful choice of initiatives and the diligent implementation of social ministries, in such a way that the Eucharistic table may be a sign of solidarity and sharing with the poor.' [Here, alas, is the answer to the question Melancholicus posed at the end of the previous paragraph.]

"Accordingly, over the next four years, parishes are invited to suggest how best to celebrate the 2012 Congress. In all our preparations we shall continue to: promote renewal of faith; bear witness for the Gospel [doubtless by calling for social justice, something any marxist heathen could do]; and, communicate the principle that the Eucharist represents the community professing itself as belonging to the Lord [at first Melancholicus misread the 'community professing itself' as 'the community worshipping itself' and thought, in amazement, that the conciliar church had at last let the cat out of the bag and frankly admitted what was really going on at their liturgies. One would not be overly surprised, since that sort of thing is exactly what transpires in so many churches where the Spirit of Vatican II^TM holds sway. But what the text actually says is not a million miles removed from Melancholicus' original misreading. For this 'definition', if such it be, of the holy Eucharist is frighteningly reminiscent of the heretical article 7 of the 1969 Institutio Generalis of the new Roman Missal that defined the Mass as merely a 'synaxis' or shared community meal. There is no mention whatever of the sacrificial nature of the Mass, or of the nature of the Eucharist as the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus. In fact authentic Catholic Eucharistic teaching is so thoroughly disregarded by this press release that the text contains absolutely nothing to which protestants could possibly take exception! Melancholicus for one finds that remarkable. Not surprising... but nonetheless remarkable].

"Finally, we wish to congratulate Cardinal Ouellet, Archbishop of Quebec, and his fellow clergy, religious and laity of Canada on the quality of the reflections and liturgical events which all contributed to a very successful Congress in Quebec. The daily Masses, workshops [!], witness reflections, discussions and adoration of the Eucharist made for a joyous week while leaving a lasting impression on all the pilgrims who attended this special event."

ENDS

A pox upon these conciliar prelates, and upon all their houses.

While Melancholicus is not old enough to remember the 1932 Eucharistic Congress, he is intimately familiar with it since in his boyhood he chanced upon an old picture-book of the same while holidaying in his grandparents’ house one summer.

Many years later, when both of his grandparents had died, Melancholicus and his mother were clearing out their vacant house as it was due to be sold. It was a sad task, filled with many memories. It was not a big job as they were poor people, and aside from a few old bits of furniture, they owned little else. Melancholicus was at that time discerning the beginnings of a possible vocation to the priesthood, and so he retained for a keepsake all that his grandparents had owned that pertained to the Catholic faith — medals, scapulars, rosaries, prayer books, pictures, holy cards and of course the picture-book of the 1932 Eucharistic Congress.

Many times he has read through that book, even during those years of his adolescence in which he cared nothing particularly for the things of God and of religion, and the images therefrom are imprinted on his mind. Even in the days of his heathendom he was captivated by the sight of the vast crowds, the children turned out in their first holy communion finery, the sight of our political and military leaders kneeling—yes, kneeling—on the bare ground for the Apostolic legate’s Mass in the Phoenix Park; they had faith in those days. The photographs (all black-and-white of course), with their capture forever of the old-fashioned dress, motor vehicles and architecture of the 1930s, and of so many people, most of whom would have been long dead by the time Melancholicus found the book, made the scene romantic as a lost world into which one might enter as though by means of the wardrobe in C. S. Lewis’ Narnia stories. Of course the reality of 1932 was decidedly less romantic than it appears in Melancholicus’ picture-book; Ireland was then a desperately poor country, with a sky-high rate of child mortality (especially from TB), alcoholism, and unemployment. But what a breathtaking contrast with today’s third-rate tat were the beautiful vestments of the clergy, the lacy surplices and rochets, the flowing robes of the assembled prelates and of the papal legate Cardinal Lauri! The Irish Free State was at that time only ten years old. The Second World War had not yet come, but is was soon, as Our Lady had prophesied at Fatima, as Pius XI was at that time on the throne of Peter. Among sundry other oddities, this pontiff was enthusiastic about convoking an ecumenical council to finish the work of the Vatican Council that had been suspended indefinitely owing to the occupation of Rome by Italian forces in 1870. His advisers ultimately dissuaded him from this project, convincing the pontiff that the time was not opportune, nor would the Church stand to gain from a council. ’Tis a pity indeed that John XXIII’s advisers were not able so to convince their man!

So the recent announcement that the next Eucharistic Congress will be held in Dublin was momentous news.

When Melancholicus heard the news, his first reaction was a flash of delight.

Nevertheless, he must admit to mixed feelings about the proposed event. Given the state of the Church today, and especially the ruin of the liturgy, it can hardly top the 1932 Congress—or even come close to it.

One should start as one means to go on, and the announcement of the 2012 Congress in the above release from the Catholic Communications Office, replete as it is with buzzwords, jargon and studied ambiguity, is not the kind of beginning which makes for a good end.

In the first instance, the event will furnish our enemies with endless scope for sneering and for blasphemies against the Catholic faith. As at any prominent and public Catholic event, all the dissidents and politicised self-interest groups will slither out from beneath the leaf litter and court the attention of the media, who will be only too happy to oblige. All the old chestnuts will be raised; the journalists—both unbaptised and apostates alike—will pack countless column inches with tedious and predictable ‘debates’ about Catholic teaching on contraception, homosexuality, clerical celibacy, women’s ordination, etc. etc. etc. to such an extent that the Congress itself will be forgotten.

This unhappy state of affairs would obtain even were holy Church in a state of robust health, but given her current ailing condition, weakened by the widespread loss of faith and the lack of clarity in Catholic teaching characteristic of our time, these negative effects can only be amplified accordingly.

While it is unlikely that Melancholicus will himself witness the 2012 Eucharistic Congress at first hand, since he will then be living in Washington with his wife, it is of great concern to him that such an event in the diocese in which he was baptized and confirmed should at least be edifying. He does not expect it to top the Congress of 1932; but he hopes it shall not prove itself to a be a shameful embarrassment at which Catholic teaching shall be obscured in favour of the maxims of contemporary political correctness, or that its liturgies shall feature creepy giant puppets or other unseemly spectacles more suited to the circus tent than to the sacrifice of calvary, along with pop music and rock guitars in place of traditional hymns and solemn chant.

Otherwise the whole event will have been a fruitless—and no doubt expensive—waste of time.

Pauline year to be inaugurated at vespers on June 28th

From Catholic World News:

Ecumenical Vespers service to open Pauline year

Rome, Jun. 24, 2008 (CWNews.com) - A special year dedicated to St. Paul will be inaugurated on June 28, with a Vespers service at the Roman basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls, the Vatican has announced.

Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) will preside at the evening service. The Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople will participate in the event to open the Pauline year.

Melancholicus must admit that his first reaction having seen the headline of this story was a most decided Yuck!, but having read the story itself he must aver that the headline is inappropriate, for “ecumenical vespers” conjures up cringe-making memories of those ghastly interreligious get-togethers of the previous pontificate, in which the Vicar of Christ used to rub shoulders with pro-abort Lutheran bishoppesses and pro-homosexual liberal Anglicans in watered-down interfaith ‘liturgies’ the contents of which were specially crafted so as not to offend the sensibilities of whatever persons of all faiths or none that might be in attendance.

Thank God the basilica of St. Paul is to be spared such nonsense, since it appears that this will actually be a celebration of the office of Vespers (doubtless in Latin, perhaps with bits in liturgical Greek owing to the presence of the Orthodox patriarch) but without the Lutheran pro-aborts and the liberal Anglicans (who will all be at Lambeth instead, won’t they?), and furthermore without the bongo-drums, feathered head-dresses and sari-wearing Hindoos beloved of the former papal MC.

The Society of St. Pius X and reconciliation

Rumours are flying around — as they have been doing on a regular basis since 2001 — of an impending reconciliation between the Holy See and the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. Melancholicus does not pay much attention to these rumours, since he does not believe that the SSPX will ever return to full communion with the Church en bloc, any more than, say, the Lutheran or Anglican churches will reconcile with Rome in such fashion. Schism may hurt in the beginning, but one grows accustomed to it after a while, and ultimately it begins to feel comfortable and natural. One of the perks of schism is that one is free to do one’s own thing without having to worry about the approval of ecclesiastical superiors, diocesan ordinaries, or the Vatican.

Nevertheless, although the prospects for the regularisation of the SSPX seem unlikely, Melancholicus has chosen to reproduce this Catholic World News story on Infelix Ego, even though the original report in Il Giornale has not yet been verified, not because he wishes to address the predicted regularization, but because this story makes reference to a subject that claims his interest, and upon which he feels drawn to comment.

It concerns Vatican II, and the authority thereof. The reader will easily spot the words in question. Emphasis in the story below is my own.

Vatican proposal to regularize SSPX?

Rome, Jun. 24, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Italian daily Il Giornale reports that Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) has approved an offer to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) that could heal the breach between the Holy See and the traditionalist group.

The Vatican’s offer requires a response from the SSPX by June 28, Il Giornale says. The offer was apparently explained by Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the president of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, during a recent meeting with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the superior general of the SSPX.

[Note: CWNews has been unable to confirm the report in Il Giornale. Rumors of Vatican efforts to regularize the status of the SSPX have persisted for months.]

Il Giornale says that the accord proposed by the Vatican has two stipulations: the SSPX would be required to recognize the authority of Vatican II teachings and to affirm the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the SSPX, had accepted both of those terms before his break with the Vatican in 1986.

The Vatican proposes the erection of a traditionalist prelature, Il Giornale reports. This prelature would allow the SSPX to continue its work and to train its own seminarians.

So let’s get this straight. At least according to Il Giornale, the two conditions of regularization are that the SSPX 1) “recognize the authority of Vatican II teachings” and 2) “affirm the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass”.

The second of these conditions is straightforward. The Novus Ordo is a valid rite of Mass. End of story. Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded it as such, and so have the Roman pontiffs from Paul VI down to the present incumbent of the Apostolic See. Unless they wish to come out of the sedevacantist closet, the adherents of the SSPX should have no problem affirming it also.

But it is the first condition that Melancholicus finds particularly interesting — and due to its inherent ambiguity, most irritating. What, exactly, does recognizing “the authority of Vatican II teachings” mean? And what teachings, precisely, are intended in this stipulation?

It is a standard rebuke levelled against Traditionalists—even those of us in perfect communion with the Church—that we are “against Vatican II” and that as a consequence we are schismatic and disobedient. But can those who reproach us with this charge explain to us precisely wherein the schism and disobedience lies? Does “recognizing the authority of Vatican II teachings” imply that the council is, for Catholics, beyond criticism? Does a less-than-rosy view of the council and its after-effects imply disobedience or a schismatic attitude in the mind of one who holds it? Is resistance to the flood of radical novelties and the disastrous opening to the world sufficient to put one outside the Church, even if one only thinks it?

In the eyes of some, it would seem so.

Now Melancholicus himself is “against the council”, at least in the sense that he regards it as the worst disaster to have befallen the Church since the days of the Reformation, but he is nevertheless in perfect communion with the Church, having denied no doctrine of faith or morals that has been defined as de fide for the Catholic faithful. It is incumbent upon those who would charge him with schism to answer the following two questions:

1. What does Vatican II require me to believe that I would not have been required to believe before 1965?
2. What does Vatican II require me to do that I would not have been required to do before 1965?

If the answer to both of those questions is nothing, as I firmly believe it is, then there is no case to answer, and the issue of obedience to Vatican II is a party political matter rather than a doctrinal one. If the answer to either one of those questions is anything other than nothing, then I for one would dearly love to hear it.

Now the SSPX may be in schism, but this is due to illicit episcopal consecrations which occurred in 1988, and not because of anything their bishops, priests or other adherents may have said or written about Vatican II. As far as their attitude to Vatican II goes, it should be sufficient for them—and for all Traditionalists—simply to profess that Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Church, validly convoked by lawful authority, whose documents were validly promulgated, and which taught no formal heresy.

This much Melancholicus himself believes concerning the council.

But he does not, nor will he ever, believe that Vatican II was a good thing, let alone a blessing; and there does not exist an office in the Church, not even the Papacy itself, which has the authority to make him so believe.

Holy Father: those who fear God need never fear other men

This story about the Holy Father’s public audience last Sunday comes from — where else? — Catholic World News:

Fear of God banishes fear of man, Pope notes

Vatican, Jun. 23, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Fear of God is completely unlike the “existential fear” of modern man, Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) told his midday audience on Sunday, June 22.

The Holy Father observed that in the day’s Gospel, Jesus contrasts fear of God with fear of man. Those who fear God need never fear other men, he said.

The Pope spoke about the various types of fear that are common to all humans, beginning with the fears prompted by childish imagination and going on to the realistic fears of adult life. The latter, he said, “must be faced and overcome with human commitment and trust in God.”

However, modern life is scarred by another sort of fear “which sometimes spills over into anguish,” the Pope continued. “It is It is born of a sense of emptiness, associated with a certain culture that is permeated with widespread theoretical and practical nihilism.” That fear is the enemy of faith; it is conquered by the virtue of hope.

“Fear of God, which Scripture defines as 'the beginning of true hope,’ means to have faith in Him,” the Pope explained. "Those who fear God are serene even amidst the storms.”

Looking forward to the start of the Pauline Year on June 28, Pope Benedict concluded his remarks with the observation that St. Paul’s faith was strong enough so that he “did not even fear martyrdom.”

Ah! So that’s what’s wrong with our bishops! It all makes sense now.

They have NO FEAR OF GOD!

The final referendum results

Melancholicus offers his apologies to those readers from outside the European Union, and to those who couldn’t care less about the Lisbon Treaty, but for those who have borne with him thus far there is now some good news. This (barring a radical change of political circumstances) will be his final post on Lisbon, after which we can all go home for the weekend. Melancholicus will begin posting once again on more interesting matters early next week.

Results are now in from the last of the undeclared constituencies and, as was apparent even from early this morning, Ireland has rejected the Lisbon Treaty and thrown a spanner into the works of the European Union. The EU constitution, resurrected after a fashion in the articles of Lisbon, is now well and truly dead. The French and the Dutch three years ago voted not in vain.

It’s all over now, and we can go happily back to our business now that the bugbear has been brought down. There will of course be a great deal of soul-searching in the days and weeks to come; our political leaders will be asking themselves what they did wrong, and agonising over the result like a championship team that came within a hair’s breadth of winning the cup final but was pipped at the last. Just wait and see how long it will be until the various factions within the Yes campaign begin apportioning blame among their fellows, if they have not begun this political blood-sport already. The commissars, frothing with ill-concealed fury, have already begun their snarling at the disobedient Irish electorate, but we will bear their opprobrium patiently; they can snarl all they like, but that won’t change the fact that we have shot down their sneaky attempt to overmaster us. There are rumours that some states may attempt to ratify the Treaty anyway; this seems to contradict what we were told by both Brussels and by our political leaders, to the end that the Treaty cannot go into effect unless ratified by all 27 states together.

In any case this is a setback for the commissars, but not the end of the road. If the reader remembers, the Irish electorate rejected the Treaty of Nice in a similar referendum in 2001, whereupon the referendum was put to us again — and passed — the following year. Melancholicus suspects that after a discreet interval, when the hubbub has died down, a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will be offered to the Irish electorate — and whether they will say No a second time remains to be seen.

Now, for the record, here are the results from the last five constituencies outside Dublin:

Meath West: No (55.5% to 44.5%)
Laois/Offaly: Yes (56% to 44%)
Cork North-West: No (53.9% to 46.1%)
Cork South-West: No (55.6% to 44.4%)
Cork East: No (57% to 43%)

And the last three Dublin constituencies:

Dublin North-Central: Yes (50.6% to 49.4%)
Dublin North-East: No (56.8% to 43.2%)
Dublin North-West: No (63.6% to 36.4%)

And that all looks fairly decisive. Only four constituencies outside Dublin voted Yes overall; the result in a fifth was a dead heat. Everywhere else the No vote was clear. Even in the capital, the greatest hope of the Yes campaign, seven of the twelve Dublin constituencies rejected the Treaty. Melancholicus would actually have lost the bet referred to in the previous post, as Laois/Offaly was the last constituency to declare (and it voted Yes, it being the Taoiseach’s constituency).

What a disaster for the Irish government! What a disaster for the commissars!

But how good for Ireland, and for the people of Europe!

Further results

Outside Dublin:

Galway West rejected the Treaty by a more generous margin than Galway East (53.9% to 46.1%). Of considerable interest is that the result is tied in a dead heat in Carlow/Kilkenny — 50.0% both for and against!

In Dublin:

Three of the six inner Dublin constituencies have now returned results. Dublin Central (Bertie Ahern’s constituency incidentally) and Dublin South-Central both voted No. The more affluent Dublin South-East has voted Yes, with a margin of 61.7% to 38.3%.

Only eight constituencies left, three in Dublin and five outside Dublin. Melancholicus is still waiting on his home constituency of Dublin North-West, but if he were a betting man he would put money on one of the three outer Cork constituencies being the last in the country to declare.

Not too much longer now...

Lisbon Treaty rejected in most constituencies

As time passes, results are becoming available from more and more constituencies. What is striking is the number of constituencies that have voted No.

Outside Dublin, the only constituencies that have delivered a Yes vote are Meath East (by the slenderest margin, 50.9% to 49.1%) and Clare (by another slender margin, 51.8% to 48.2%). The only constituency outside of Dublin that has delivered a convincing Yes vote is, oddly enough, Kildare North (54.6% to 45.4%).

Every other constituency for which results were available at the time of this writing rejected the Treaty — although in some cases the result was extremely close (Wicklow, for instance, which voted No 50.2% to 49.8%).

We are still waiting on the three outlying Cork constituencies, as well as on Galway West, Laois/Offaly, Meath West and Carlow/Kilkenny.

The situation in Dublin is, as expected, a little different. Results are in for all the outer Dublin constituencies, but from not even one constituency in inner Dublin. Dublin West, Dublin Mid-West and Dublin South-West all voted No, by an ever increasing margin towards the south. Dublin North, Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire voted Yes (although the margin in Dublin North was slender — 50.6% to 49.4%).

The biggest margin in favour of the Treaty recorded so far is in Dún Laoghaire, where 63.5% of those who voted cast a Yes vote.

There are as yet no results for Melancholicus’ own constituency of Dublin North-West.

Still No

The time is 14:30.

The margin between the two sides has not narrowed, it has widened! Fully half of all constituencies have now declared a final result.

This most recent update courtesy of RTÉ:

“With results in from 21 of the 43 constituencies, the Lisbon Treaty is being beaten by a margin of 54.6% to 45.4%. That margin is expected to tighten as more results are announced, but the result is not in doubt.”

Results are now in from both Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire. As expected, both constituencies delivered a Yes vote (by margins of 62.9% to 37.1% and 63.5% to 36.5% respectively).

See the top ten Yes/No constituency results here.

The latest

The time is 14:00.

The most recent update courtesy of RTÉ:

“With results in from 10 of the 43 constituencies, the Lisbon Treaty is being beaten by a margin of 53.6% to 46.4%. That margin is expected to tighten as more results are announced, but the result is not in doubt.”

No in Dublin South-West

The time is 13:45.

With the biggest margin against the Lisbon Treaty declared in any result so far, Dublin South-West has voted No at 65-35. This is a predominately working-class constituency, and socialists and other lefties tend to do well in elections here. Accordingly, the electorate’s rejection of the Treaty is no surprise.

We still await the results from the much more affluent Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire constituencies.

Update

Looking good so far. They’re already celebrating victory over at Credo, but Melancholicus shall wait until the final result is officially announced before popping any corks, and in any case ... he’s still at work.

From RTÉ:

Irish voters set to reject Lisbon Treaty

Friday, 13 June 2008 13:26

It seems certain that Irish voters have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.

Although official results are only starting to come in, tallies of votes have shown a very strong No vote right across the country.

Waterford was the first constituency to declare an official result - and it was unequivocal, rejecting Lisbon by 54-46, while Sligo-North Letrim voted no by 57-43. Tipperary South also voted No, by 53-46 as did Tipperary North by 50.2-49.80. Waterford also voted to reject the Treaty by 54-46.

In Sligo-North Leitrim, the No vote was higher than was recorded in the first Nice Referendum, and if as seems likely it is followed in other parts of the country, the Lisbon Treaty looks certain to be defeated.

Tallies from other constituencies show the strength of the No vote across the country, with just a handful of constituencies looking like they will vote yes.

The margin of victory for the No side may be a bit tighter than was suggested in the initial tallies - but there seems little doubt that it is a victory.

The final official result is expected to be announced late this afternoon.

Tallies of votes have indicated there has been a strong No vote - although the Yes side appeared to have made up some ground.

The nationwide trend had indicated a very strong showing by opponents of the Lisbon Treaty - but as the morning went on and tallies became more complete, the Yes side has regained some ground.

Complete tallies are available from around half the constituencies - although they come with a strong warning that some of them may not be all that accurate.

Judging by those tallies, middle class constituencies like Dublin South, Dublin South East and Dún Laoghaire seem likely to have a 60-40 vote in favour of Lisbon.

However the No vote was said to be ahead in Dublin North West, Dublin Central, Cork North Central and South Central, both Kerry constituencies, both Tipperary constituencies, and Galway West.

Early tallies had pointed to a very strong showing by the No vote.

The No vote was strong in many rural areas and in working class districts of cities, while middle class areas appeared to be less supportive of the treaty than had been anticipated.

In urban areas, middle class areas by and large appeared to have voted in favour of the treaty - but not by the normal large margin, and not by enough to counteract the large No in working class areas.

In Mayo, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has forecast his home constituency will vote against the treaty.

Turnout is estimated to have been in the mid-40s percentage range. After years of negotiation and months of debate, the fate of the Lisbon Treaty will be known within hours.

Each constituency counts its own votes separately, and then sends the result to the Referendum Returning Officer in Dublin Castle, who will announce the overall result.

With a 60-40 margin in favour of the Treaty in south Dublin (home to the Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar-driving demographic), which is bigger than the margins by which the Treaty has been defeated in rural constituencies, shall Dublin swing the final result back toward the Yes side? Dublin contains not much less than a third of the whole electorate. Victory for the No side is not assured.

In any case, we still await the definitive outcome.

It's happening already...

The latest news, from RTÉ:

No vote strong in early Lisbon tallies

Friday, 13 June 2008 10:52

Early tallies in the Lisbon Referendum count from constituencies around the country suggest the Treaty may be in some difficulty.

The No vote is strong in many rural areas and in working class districts of cities, while middle class areas appear to be less supportive of the Treaty than had been anticipated.

However, these are only tallies, and it is very early in the count to be too definitive about the outcome. Firmer indications are due late this morning.

While it is far too early to be definitive, the Yes side are not too happy with the early indications.

Turnout is estimated to have been in the mid-40s percentage range. After years of negotiation and months of debate, the fate of the Lisbon Treaty will be known within hours.

The final official result is expected to be announced late this afternoon, but tallies from the 43 constituencies should give a good indication of the likely outcome late this morning.

Each constituency counts its own votes separately, and then sends the result to the Referendum Returning Officer in Dublin Castle, who will announce the overall result.

Turnout is thought to have been higher than in the first Nice Referendum, which was defeated, but lower than in the second, which was passed.

However, with recent opinion polls suggesting that supporters of the treaty were more likely to vote, a lower turnout is not necessarily good news for the No side.

The emphasis in the above is our own, and does not appear in the original.

So far all seems to be moving in the right direction.

The morning after

The referendum has been held, and we are now breathlessly awaiting news of the first returns. It is 10:20am at the time of writing, and counting began only 80 minutes ago. RTÉ will broadcast a special programme on the results of the referendum at 12:30, to which Melancholicus intends to listen while sitting at his desk and discharging the obligations of his state.

Melancholicus had a busy day yesterday, but he presented himself at his local polling station at 6.30pm and exercised his democratic right by casting his vote. Turnout all over the country was poor, no more than 45% on average. If past referenda are anything to go by, a low turnout tends to favour the naysayers. So Melancholicus expects that the result, when it is made public, shall be a definitive rejection of the Lisbon Treaty — unless of course the Irish government shall have had recourse to that favourite tactic of third world countries and banana republics, namely vote rigging.

As the result is likely to be a rejection of the Treaty and the ire of the Brussels autocracy against the Irish electorate is likely to be hot indeed, Melancholicus thinks it prudent not to announce publicly which way he voted, lest the commissars or their agents be trawling the blogs looking for enemies of the European state, for surely someone will have to pay for having thus spoiled The Grand Project. Extraordinary rendition to a gaol in eastern Germany, anyone?

Melancholicus is jesting of course, but if the Lisbon Treaty were passed, and the EU continued to evolve into a super-state with powers exceeding those of the nations... well, liberalism has oft degenerated into totalitarianism in the past, so why might it not do so again?

In any case, Melancholicus’ regular readers already know which way he voted.