Beauty, it has been noted, is oft-times in the eye of the beholder. One man's masterpiece is another's carbuncle.

It is less often commented on that the same applies to morals and that most elusive of concepts, truth.

For instance, most sentient beings would call Tony Blair an unctuous, money-grabbing low-life with all the sincerity of pervert protesting their innocence after being caught in flagrante delicto with a goat.

You can bet that's not how he sees himself though. No, in Blair's eyes he is a paladin of virtue and as infamously stated a "pretty straight guy."

On an associated theme, it has also been amply - nay, graphically - illustrated that those who set themselves up as the sole source of verity and knowledge on a given subject tend to get a bit hot under the collar if they are questioned on their qualifications for the role or if anyone else does the same. Especially if it's a dog collar.

As we approach Easter, we are reminded that this is traditionally a time for re-examination and reflection.

But it's funny what different forms this reflection and re-examination can take.

Take the question of the current Pope for instance. Il Papa Francis is marking his first anniversary in the job this month after his predecessor stood down to avoid getting his "go to jail, do not pass go" card - er, I mean devote himself to his studies.

Both the right and left are desperately attempting to claim the Argentinian pontiff as one of their own.

Even elements of the lay community have greeted the new incumbent as a much-needed breath of fresh air amid the putrefying stench of the Vatican.

They claim he is a liberal reformer, totally ignoring the fact that the Vatican's definition of liberal makes Nick Clegg look like Che Guevara.

Just because he's not as blatantly right-wing as Ratzinger doesn't make him radical.

In an interview with Corriere della Sera, Francis praised the hugely controversial encyclical by Paul VI which continued the ban on contraception, praising his predecessor's "genius" as "prophetic" and his courage in defending "moral discipline."

So little children in Africa and his own native Latin America being born riddled with HIV is a small price to pay for the instilling of "discipline" is it?

Much has been made of Francis's humbleness. Washing the feet of the disabled and ditching the bullet-proof Popemobile for a hatchback.

But what he came out with next showed the papacy's true colours.

He, in all apparent seriousness, told the rag that the Catholic church was the only institution to have taken child abuse seriously.

It took it seriously all right. It seriously thought it could cover it up, then, when it realised it couldn't, it moved its funds seriously offshore to avoid paying compensation.

But, no, in his first public utterance on the outrage since a damning United Nations report denounced the Vatican for continuing to protect paedophile priests, Francis had a different take on things.

He argued that in fact most abuse occurs within the family of the victim and not the church.

He then added: "The Catholic church is perhaps the only public institution to have acted with transparency and responsibility."

That's not what the Fearns report or the most recent UN document said.

"No-one else has done more," he claimed, "and yet the church is the only one to be attacked."

They don't like it up 'em, do they? If you'll excuse the expression.

But it wasn't just the pontiff who played the victim card and attempted to portray the UN report as further persecution of the church.

In a speech at the US Family Research Council last week, FRC senior fellow Pat Fagan compared the report to "Kristallnacht," the spate of violence in which nazi stormtroopers attacked Jews and destroyed their property while German police turned a blind eye.

One report of his comments noted: "Fagan acknowledged that the comparison of the children's rights committee to nazi forces and the UN to complicit German authorities was 'a bit of an overplay,' but decided to go for it anyway."

That's the kind of straight-talking moral leadership this planet needs.

And speaking of spiritual guidance, this week also saw an unholy row break out over a new cinematic depiction of Noah and the great flood.

The God squad have got themselves into a bit of a lather, claiming that the Hollywood movie is "inaccurate."

First of all, the words "Hollywood" and "movie" pretty much guarantee that.

Second, what exactly is it in the film's depiction of a mythical figure who allegedly built a boat so big he could house two of each species aboard it and lived to be over 900 years old that strikes these zealots as unrealistic?

Now, granted Russell Crowe wouldn't be everyone's first choice to portray the man allegedly handed the task of preserving the mammalian species but, hell, David Attenborough's retired. And he does have a certain antediluvian quality.