, , , ,

A late response by The Rambling Bricklayer.

Do we really believe that condoms can prevent the spread of AIDS?  Stephen Fry says yes?  The Catholic Church on the other hand suggests that abstaining from sexual relations prevents the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which could potentially eradicate AIDS. Stephen Fry furthers his point by actually blaming the Catholic Church due to their immovable and historical stance on how we should conduct our sex lives. The problem is not the church, they have had their view on sex long before HIV hit the headlines. The problem is in our intellectuals such as Fry and the late Christopher Hitchens beefing up how condoms are an answer when up against AIDS. The Bible asks where is the wise man of this age, and suggests human wisdom is a distant second to the omnipotent view of God. Please read my view point and leave a comment below.

During a debate held at the Central Hall in London in 2009, Stephen Fry gave a speech that suggested the Catholic Church is simply “not a force for good in the world”. The debate was won quite convincingly by Fry and his partner Christopher Hitchens with an overwhelming, almost embarrassing, majority. Their opponents were the Archbishop Onaiyekan of Abuja, Nigeria and Ann Widdecombe, who nevertheless stood her ground marvellously. The Archbishop on the other hand was slow, awkward and hopeless on all accounts and should have declined the offer to debate in front of such an expecting audience. It was clear that he had no clue to the sharp intellect of his opponents and was ill prepared. He appeared pompous with an outdated air of authority that is perhaps spent in much of the Western World. Anne nevertheless counter balanced Hitchens and rebuffed all that Hitchens had said. She spoke well with passion, but was flanked by Fry who took the stage last and delivered a high energy and entertaining blast of why the Catholic Church, in his inflated opinion, is no good for the world, and he said it was a pleasure to speak his mind on such a subject. Fry’s key counteractive points were paedophilia, AIDS and repression.

While delivering his speech Stephen Fry’s voice was powerfully emotive yet exquisite. The setting at the Central Hall in London was magnificent, but the meaning behind his elegant words lacked any true substance. He entertained and showed intellectual passion, but his view of the Catholic Church was flawed and ultimately wrong.

To tackle Stephen Fry’s comments I will attempt to streamline my consciousness on the three primary areas discussed by Fry. I will counter his theory on the Catholic Church’s efforts to combat the spread of AIDS. I will look at Fry’s lack of understanding the difference between people who say they are with God, like the sexually repressed paedophile priests he mentioned who clearly had ulterior motives when joining the Catholic Church, and those who are with God. I hope to make it clear that Satan has no boundaries and certainly has no fear of the church, or any organisation for that matter, and will with ease arrest those priests who say they have Godly motives, although their sexual desires highlighted by Fry clearly state that this is not the case. Also, I will challenge Fry’s concept of Catholic repression. To achieve this it will be necessary to touch on the omnipotent view that Fry relied upon when he discussed people that are apparently repressed, rather then spiritually fed, by the church.

When referring to AIDS Fry with his undeniable intellect stated that the Catholic Church has denied that the use of condoms could prevent the AIDS epidemic from spreading. He did agree with the church that total sexual abstinence as a good method to combat the disease too, but reimbursed theories that the spread of AIDS could still be prevented by suggesting those who live in affected areas of Africa should use a condom when having sex, which as you know is placing a plastic sheath over the penis to prevent the mixing of bodily fluids between sexual partners. There was no mention however of the other bodily fluids that could cause the disease to spread, like blood or breast milk for example. Nevertheless, it must be said that when facing such a challenging discussion Mr Fry was given a limited amount of time to put his case across, and having touched on AIDS, which he stated is close to his heart, there was only ten or so minutes to challenge the Catholic Church on such a powerful and prominent subject.

Stephen Fry, like most atheist intellectuals, often appear so impeccably correct that there seems to be no point in countering a case against them. After all, they are on our side right! Many of us would agree that authority must be challenged, and why not by such eloquence that frequented the stage in the shape and sound of Stephen Fry who gave it his best emotive shot. I’m afraid however, that he won the debate due to the voter’s momentary attachment to his politically correct charge that most of us find it far easier to applaud. When we do applaud however, we avoid the painstaking truth that sets us free. We agree because we want to be part of the political in crowd. We agree because we know that following Jesus is not easy and vexes our spirit, and the truth can be far away from our nodding smirks while we sling a load of apparent life saving condoms at Africa.

Those in the audience who voted that evening perhaps have underlying hidden truths that would normally oppose how they ticked the box at the end of the debate. If any of them truly believed that millions of lives could have been saved by their attitude on condoms, or still be saved for that matter, they have quite simply been wrapped up in the biggest lie of the 20th century, which has now of course been carried over to the 21st century. Condoms preventing AIDS from spreading is a ludicrous concept! The condom was for over a decade the best answer we as a nation could come up with because we failed to find the answers that much of society so craved, so we made one up, condoms! Can you imagine a scientist nowadays suggesting condoms as an answer when up against AIDS? Some may argue condoms as a momentary minor part effort maybe, like sand bags against an incoming flood, condoms could be suggested until an adequate recovery or cure could be found. This part time softer option however would still be unacceptable to the Catholic Church and why, because it is not the ultimate truth, which is the discourse that sets us free.

With regard to knowledge, those like me that know little feel a genuine need to fake enquiry and conclude with a solution that will solve any problem that is placed in our path, particularly if the problem involves a person’s health. To say nothing when someone expects you to answer and resolve their situation simply will not suffice in most situations, so we make up an answer or say “we’ll get right back to you on that”. In conclusion to the HIV situation therefore, and most probably panic, we’ve had millions of boxes full of condoms sent over to Africa to overcome a disease we knew very little about. The aeroplanes nevertheless landed in Africa full of apparent life-saving condoms allowing the Western World to sit back while we hoped to watch beautiful little black children dancing in the streets, if they have streets that is, instead of being wrenched to death by that horrendous illness.

We are so clever at knowing what’s best for Africa we attempt to wrap it all up by relating the situation to our own cultural boundaries, which simply expresses our culture above theirs. Anyone who reads a broadsheet newspaper three times a year or casually watches the news every now and again will know how AIDS started and how it spread across the globe, and how bloody difficult it is to combat. Some may argue everything is worth a try, but to bang on about condoms as a resolution that has been denied by the church is plain crazy, because condoms would never resolves AIDS or prevent its spreading one iota. To place this vague plastic sheath solution in the hands of a carrier, or a person who is afraid of catching the disease, to whether they throw on a condom before sex is irresponsible and cannot be taken seriously. Must we then rely on that person carrying condoms around with them at all times just in case the possibility of having sex arises? What about the potential carriers overall attitude, personality, moral or spiritual stance? What happens when they deny having the illness, well of course they won’t be needing a condom then will they? What about employing condom police, maybe that would help? To be sure, it is the most preposterous notion that has ever been put before an intelligent audience who in the end voted in favour of Stephen Fry, what?

For argument sake, let’s select a healthy young thing from the audience and ask her how she should conduct her sex life had she found herself living in a town where 25% of adults have AIDS. Let’s suppose she finds a handsome young man amongst the many who find her attractive and with the knowledge that the young man has HIV, or not, we’ll sling in a pack of three condoms to counteract the fear that she may have of catching AIDS, and she could then have sex with him to her hearts content, well three times actually. Maybe on the other hand she could abstain from having sex at all, knowing all along the truth will set her free.

Briefly, for a moment or two, think of your daughter or your friend’s daughter, someone you care about and love, preferably around 19 years old. She is beautiful, in full flight of life, ready for university and hoping to be a scientist. She has a gap year and is travelling to Africa to work for a charity and will be staying near the villages that have been devastated by AIDS, and you have been given the task of discussing sex with her. Would you 1) hand her a pack of condoms and tell her to be careful, or 2) tell her that total abstinence from sex is the only true way where she can be absolutely safe and free. Be honest now, what is your answer?

To be sure the Catholic Church had suggested that abstaining from sexual relations between varying partners long before AIDS came into being the destructive force it has become. Why, then, should the church change their correct thinking, to a bunch of modern intellectuals that are not much more than self indulged people pleasers that miss the truth? The Catholic Church have no other option than to maintain the truth by stating that, and only that, abstaining from sex is the only way. When setting out the truth, which is the churches job, there can be no other alternative. They cannot suggest that condoms can be used as a substitute if all abstinence fails, because that is a flawed concept that puts the solution into the hands of those who carry the illness.

Fry and his followers could argue that their faith is placed in the hope that people behave responsibly with their sex lives. The HIV carrier’s mental state and on their position within the community are not taken into consideration at all. Humanity can be rough, dishonest and cold. We can lie and cheat to get our own way. We can fill our minds with wants rather than needs. Do they care for example? What if they simply don’t care, what then? What happens when the white Western World condom van charity man pulls up with ice cream music, cheap slogans, weak literature and smiling bouncy pom pom charity people throwing with glee free condoms into the affray? Some locals may nod yes to a free bag of condoms, but when the cookie crumbles and the blood pumps up, the long plastic sheaf has been long thrown in the bin and the van has moved on to the next town will the truth be revealed.

How would  infrastructure, or the lack of it, be dealt with? The boxes of condoms fit squarely into a machine or on a pharmaceutical shelf. The machine fits on to a wall and is designed to take coins. The boxes fit in vans and lorries that drive down motorways, much of which has very little to do with the cultural boundaries in, say, a North Africa remote village. There are no motor ways, shelves, machines or toilets in night clubs with walls to put them on. Coinage is different which gives rise to a whole new engineering task altogether.

A while ago my students were invited, (I teach at a suburban college) to view large photographs of diseased penises and vaginas. The images were hung up on a stand behind three young 17 year old red faced girls, or ladies perhaps, who were handing out leaflets and free condoms. Underneath my negating nods was an earnestness to say something, although I decided to stay quiet. Within a few minutes the corridors and stair ways were being occupied by students fighting with blown up condoms. The students were 16 to 18 years old and could not take the issue seriously. I can guarantee when this debacle was organized by the post modern intellectual managers, they failed to see how this would be implemented over a course of time. The process failed after 7 minutes, and this was among students who have a vague cultural understanding of condoms. Do Africans have the same cultural thoughts, I really doubt that is the case.

How amazing is it that a man name Simon, then to be called Peter by Jesus, was also taught by Jesus for three years who then became the first Pope. Mary Magdalene being the first to see the risen Christ. The disciples who began the New Testament, followed by Saint Paul, who was born only five years after Christ, or was it five years before, and after having an enlightening experience on the road to Damascus became the most prominent person in producing the new gospel. These are of course the men and women that laid down their lives to change the world, literally, from an enslaved place to freedom and just over two thousand years later Stephen Fry discusses the most horrendous disease by blaming the Catholic Church’s attitude that suggests condoms have no place when only the truth will suffice. Blaming the church too for its spreading like wild fire.

Hang on a moment, surely there is something amiss here? It is impossible for humans to review what might have happened had an aids carrier from Africa had access to a condom. Of all the bedevilments suggested by modern society as the flimsy reed excuse it is this; to suggest that if western world countries flooded the African market with even more condoms, with a stamp of approval by the Catholic Church, the spread of aids would have then been prevented. The notion that responsibility would be upheld behind closed doors with users slipping on condoms, when in truth slipping a condom over a penis does not touch the sides when up against such an intolerable illness, or the indelible urge. Like an alcoholic total abstinence is the only remedy that is often suggested by the Catholic Church, and this can only be achieved, once again like the alcoholic, with God on your side. God can and will take away any urge a man or woman may have if those who ask for such things have sufficient faith. This is the primary difference between a believer and a non-believer, particularly if the non-believer relies on theories fed to us by Darwin that naturalizes the embryonic ooze therefore suggesting we have no choice over these sexual desires, when actually, we do.

The mystery surrounding the unspeakable wrongness of AIDS can only be blamed on those of us who delayed the investment of our spiritual time and money, when instead fear gripped everyone.

Around the same time in the early 1980’s the building industry was plagued with a material called asbestos, which had, in time, developed a murderous reputation. We learnt that if you breathed in asbestos you wouldn’t be able to exhale the material due to the tiny micro hooks that gave asbestos the opportunity to hook onto your lungs, which caused catastrophic results. Many people died because of this awful material, and what did the professional project managers offer, a paper mask that is fastened over the mouth with a thin elastic band? This is the same cowardly condom kind of answer that had been put to people who didn’t know, by people who said they did. Asbestos and AIDS are the same thing to some people where their lives were ripped right out of them and all they were offered was plastic condoms or paper masks. When professional society simply does not have the answer, and also fails to find the courage to exclaim the truth, which can be in admitting not knowing, then the sufferers are let down. Aids cuts life short when it is in full tide, just like asbestoses.

The problem with Stephen Fry is in his denial of the truth. The Catholic Church states quite clearly that abstinence from sex would prevent AIDS from spreading, which is the ultimate truth that people do not want to hear. The problem is the church cannot waver away from the truth because it is that very truth that sets you free, as Jesus says in the Gospel of John, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8: 32). The church must stay put and remain with the truth and avoid any side stepping or world view searching to see a way how they can gather votes to be liked. Stephen Fry pandered to an audience who missed the primary meaning behind some of his words that he skated over so fast it was as though they were hardly said at all. Fry’s opinion on sex for example, saying it can be “a little dark” which he said with a tone of acceptance that maybe the darkness he refers to is some kind of natural human desire, when it is that very darkness that Stephen mentions is par to the cause of the AIDS epidemic. Let’s imagine for a moment a van load of charity workers probably funded by Richard Branson, travelling in Africa from town to town with boxes full of condoms and while stopping off every now and again to show the locals how to unravel this plastic slippery balloon and roll it over a toy model of an erect plastic penis. They would do this while explaining what? How everyone can still have sex without worry! They could flood schools and colleges with posters and good fun guides deliberating over the cool new look of condom wearing hip young things. The whole idea is embarrassing, and quite disgraceful. Look at some of the surveys that are out there that struggle to show the benefit of condom use against AIDS, which was the primary purpose of those in support of condoms, to put together a professional looking opinion that gathered pace for the condom argument, or simply to gather more funding. I would argue that many of them are funded by companies that perhaps have an invested interest to prove that condoms work.

To top all this, during his speech Stephen Fry almost normalised dark sexual behaviour and related that darkness to acceptable levels by amalgamating the “dark” alongside many other societal generalities concerning sexual behaviour. Can we therefore be spiritually sound and have dark sexual thoughts, how does that work? The same dark sex thoughts that Stephen fry mentioned running in juxtaposition to moral goodness and love is questionable in itself, without having to hanker on about AIDS?

Ok, fine, many of us have these thoughts, it is how we deal with them that counts. We can naturalize them and nudge nudge our friends to tell them all about our imaginary exploits, or we can intellectualize them the way Stephen Fry did during his speech, or we can alternatively redeem ourselves amongst Christian colleagues, pray to the Holy Spirit to rebuke our inner dark selves in hope to bring light to those murky corners of the mind. This approach actually works for those who believe in the resurrection of Jesus. When I think about it, what darkness is Stephen Fry referring to? Perhaps the whole premise of his talk was based around the dark side of sexual behaviour, to be covered in condoms? This must be defined by Fry, and if the truth sets us free, which it does, Stephen Fry must relinquish all his thoughts on this darkness he is referring to, because it is that darkness that has caused AIDS to spread, in part, the way it has and not due to the Catholic Church remaining in the truth.

During his speech Stephen Fry paid attention to particular paedophiles who have found a secure place within the church to rest their devilish desires. He mentioned cardinals who were close to the Pope, and because of this friendship they were allowed to walk free by being “sentenced”, which he repeated with ironic overtones “sentenced” to a life of prayer and repentance, meaning they actually got away with abusing children. It is clear that the priests he mentioned are paedophiles. They are of course the exact opposite to Jesus.

It must be made clear that those desires mentioned by Fry are the sins of man where ever these types of men are, whatever they do for a living, and whatever these types of men wear, which of course includes liturgical clothing. The outward garments men wear, and words men use make no bearing on the inner man mentioned by Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans.

“Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord”! (Romans 7: 21-25)

It seems that certain priests may seek to do good but evil is right there with them. It seems also that they fail to believe in redemption through Christ. It seems moreover that not just priests, particularly over the last few decades, but also politicians, gangsters, journalists, actors, DJ’s and entertainers have been found guilty of molesting our children. It is fair to say that the church expresses spiritual boundaries which makes society more disgusted when children are abused within their apparent spiritual realm. Nevertheless, disturbed men are simply that, disturbed, and some will wear whatever disguise necessary to be near children, which includes liturgical clothing. Getting rid of the church will never get rid of paedophilia. They will simply change costume.

Are we all blotted by disguises and hidden agendas, in some areas of our lives anyway. At times the words in our minds do not marry up to the words that come from our mouths. It seems the answer is to simply dress well in polite society and tell everyone how good we are by doing charitable things, just like the Paedophile Jimmy Saville did for years. Although most of us will never full short as far as Jimmy Saville did, we will still fall short of the glory of Jesus by some way. There are many more prominent so called celebrities who claimed goodness and charity, and yet had done the most awful things to other people’s children, destroying many lives on the way. What do we say about those that held positions of authority in various well structured organisations that did the same as the priests mentioned by Mr Fry.

What I am saying, ultimately, is perhaps Stephen was right in his assumption that the church is not quite what Jesus had intended where child abusers find a way in to abuse pure innocence. The point is paedophiles haunt every aspect of our society; they abuse children anywhere they can. The church simply lacks the capacity to remove them, in the same way all other institutions lack the ability to search them out.

Stephen Fry, it seems, fell for exactly what the paedophile he mentioned in his speech wanted, which is to lay the blame at the door of a Catholic organisation when it should be laid squarely at the feet of the paedophile himself, and he should quite rightly be pursued and questioned until he enters into the gates of hell, or prison perhaps. (Although forgiveness works wonderfully well, I will discuss the methods I use in another report) Having said this, it does seem rather like a zebra amongst a dazzle where the culprit will always be hard to find, unless he is given up by his own. Perhaps this is where Fry was sound. It seemed that his argument was based around this area, that the power of the church overpowers the laws of many nations where hiding places are far too easy to find for such evil people, and being a church the wholesale hypocrisy is blatant. The problem however is, after having blamed the church, Stephen Fry then sort comfort in stereotyping priests in general as a “bunch of sexual misfits” which loses track of his focussed argument. Fry generalized, and on this note, regardless of the emotive vote count, Stephen Fry’s argument was lost. Once objectivity left the building, the now subjective but polite audience ventured into unsteady quite rancorous applause.

It seems while Stephen Fry managed to blight individuals within the church, he missed the primary point of the church, which is to create well disciplined and peaceful societies. The Catholic Church, it must be said, have managed to achieve these two factors far greater than any other organisation bar none, and they began with a humble carpenter, a bunch of not very good fishermen and a few women who financed Jesus ministry. These people were chosen by Christ not because of there power to deliver huge fear based conglomerate repressive churches as fry would have us believe, but because of their humility. Jesus said “the poor in Spirit” and “the meek” will inherit the Kingdom, which gives room for all of us to find our peace and rightful place while on this earth. Fry got too close and personal. To counter Fry’s argument we need to zoom out on Google earth where we can clearly see islands like the Canary Islands, countries like Spain and many other places throughout the world where true freedom for everyone exists. Men, women and children are free to do whatever it is they need to do to find their true potential.

Two centuries ago a spiritual man named John the Baptist proclaimed in the wilderness that the Messiah is coming. Jesus, then, began to teach how we should live our lives in the spirit of truth which lifts the veils of the law and sin from our faces. Saint Paul followed a short while later to exclaim that the law as a guiding force does not work.

Jesus proclaimed to be the Messiah. He claimed to have the words of God and was here on earth to glorify God’s grace. He told us that we would not be left as orphans after His passing and that the Holy Spirit would, in time, descend to take up residence in those who believed in the risen Christ and who call on His name. It seems to me a behavioural code has been set in our collective psych by Jesus.

Before Jesus, debauchery was rife and the carrying pagan churches boasted all kinds of filthy behaviour. Sexual debauchery was paramount and the human race had great difficulties in growing toward the nations we know today.

Focussing on sin for a moment, the primary reason Stephen Fry lacks credibility in many areas, is his limited understanding of what sin actually is, and how it manifests in men like him, myself and some of those that have joined the priesthood. The priesthood that began with Jesus shortly followed by His first Pope Saint Peter, also had the likes of Judas Escariot who, after attending the Last Supper, betrayed Jesus and then hung himself, and he was one of the twelve. From the off Christianity has had plenty of sinners that failed the redemption test. Jesus himself said “why call me Lord Lord I shall say I do not know you”.

Stephen began by suggesting he never wished to cause Catholics any offence at all, particularly the individual devout and pious members who he stated are welcome to their sacraments, reliquaries, blessed Virgin Marys and the comfort and joy they receive from their church. He made it absolutely clear that he was out to get the church, meaning its leadership and ludicrous patterns of dogmatic behaviour. Stephen further suggested Jesus was a man whom we could all admire    (when Jesus wanted far more than simple admiration) Ironically, Stephen’s thoughts on this have been aired due to the Catholic Church carrying the message of Christ over the last two thousand years. Without the carrier there is no message and therefore no one to admire. Having said this, admiration for Jesus alone would never provide enough energy to carry the Bible’s message from one century to the next. Be assured, Saint Paul had far more than admiration

Mr Fry furthered his dislike for the church by offering a broad assumption that the Catholic Church was, and still is in fact, responsible for repressing many people who live in the poorer countries around the world, rather than as the church suggests, helping them. It seems, according to Stephen Fry, that the Catholic Church prefer to repress millions of people and claim a kind of all powering ownership over them by declaring them as church members. To make his point clearer, he ironically used Jesus “the Galilean Carpenter who we can all admire” as someone who would nowadays be turned away at the gates of this type of Christianity, with its denials, sexual repression, gold ceilings and amazing architectural splendour that is full of pompous ceremony. According to Fry Jesus would be appalled with such an affray that has moved so far away from Christ’s original plan. When Stephen spoke about Catholics in general it seemed to me that his view point was from such a physical and historical distance he saw them only as a mass of people in a kind of two dimensional photo. Fry’s view on Catholics places them in constant God fearing prayer mode kneeling on stony ground amongst relics and statues of “their blessed Virgin Mary”, which he said they were welcome to. Okay, thanks!

Maybe Fry’s view is rather like Karl Marx viewpoint when he wrote about the struggling working classes as a mass of people who all appeared to be tattooed with coal dust and all paraded in the same undernourished dishevelled state. Similar perhaps to Dickens position when writing his Hard Times working class characters who were like card board cutouts. When considering a group of people from such an omnipotent distance it is impossible to see any spiritual growth within an individual amongst them at all, like faces in an old school photograph, a group of people we show interest in but have no idea of their true spiritual condition. It is moreover rather like standing on a stage looking out at an audience where everyone looks up at the stage laughing or crying to the same rhythm. They gasp in horror together or burst into a rapture of applause. Their energy gives off a certain vibe, which separates the individual from amongst them being known at all.  In doing this Fry cleverly separated the audience from being a part of the poor and needy types who are desperate to believe in something, anything, to be rid of the poorness that they no doubt suffer from! Of course the audience would prefer to look down their noses at such people rather than having to admit to being a brother or sister to them, in a religious sense I mean.

Fry was clearly discussing people he knew nothing about. He pretended to know, and made assumptions that the audience would agree with him, which gave him the energy to put his case across with such intellectual vigour. The truth is, it is impossible for him to know anything at all about those Catholics who live in poorer countries without having lived amongst their culture. If he did know, he would have simply explained how the Catholic church have produced the most peaceful communities on earth, which is a fact.

I would like to take a moment and explain where my view point stems from.

Since becoming a Christian, if I dare call myself one, intellectuals such as Stephen Fry no longer take centre stage, nor do I have high expectations when watching, for example, QI or repeats of Black Adder. In fact, in all honesty, it seems nowadays that I can hardly sit through a whole episode, which is a direct result of my daily Bible readings. It seems that a grander narrative has taken poll position and placed the likes of, not just Stephen Fry, but a whole host of comedy club, only fools and horses famous this or that comedians who just fail to turn on any humorous lights in me at all. Since my baptism, I tend to listen differently.

The whole idea of becoming a Christian is to learn how to build relations with all people regardless and to show others how God can change our ideals and perceptions. Over the years I have lived in villages, towns, cities and countries that are the most peaceful places on earth, and all have grown beneath the realms and Spirit that is very much Christ like and delivered through the Catholic Church. The very social lives these Christians lead began at the encircled courtyard that grew from the steps of their local church, particularly in Spain. The corner stone of their living condition is God. One town in particular has a population of over 300,000 people and has had only one case of heroin addiction reported, never had gunshot reports, which is all held together by one small police station and such an overwhelming spirited sense of Jesus. The place is quite remarkable. Stephen Fry did mention that it would be impertinent of him to attack those who search spiritual fulfilment, and I can only suppose that the pious people I mention here who live in the towns I am referring to are those very same people Fry respects regarding their spiritual search. Nevertheless, Fry’s picture is only half painted if he suggests the members that are on one hand repressed, yet on the other have found peace through deity, something has to give. To hazard a guess, I would suggest Fry has never visited such a place and if he has he’d probably put the peace he experienced down to some kind of historical reasoning or cultural definition.

Fry said history resonates through each one of us, which is of course true, but history like culture has limited power over an individual when up against a narrative like the Bible, which is part of the Catholic Church and has, in fact, cultivated more peaceful environments than any other global narrative at all. I have personally met many people who’s culture was wrapped up in types of food, clothing, music, dance and attitude, which was brushed aside quite simply after baptism. Jesus makes histories in the newly baptized very much, well, history.

After writing this report, and reading through a few times, my only hope for Stephen Fry is that one day soon he meets a Catholic, or any Christian for that matter, who can saturate him in total love that simply melts him so he too can be re-molded into the wordy type of character only God had intended, rather than the one he himself has invented. To achieve this however, that dark sex he spoke about has to go.