In defence of traditional marriage

Last weekend, our Parish Priest, Mnsgr. John Boyle, invited Dame Marie Bashir, former Governor of NSW, to attend the vigil mass to thank her for her services. A most accomplished and distinguished lady, she showed up and was duly thanked during the mass. On my part, I must confess I didn't attend. I prefer Sunday mass at 7:30 or 9:00 am.

Anyway, I digress. Dame Marie was also quoted a few days later in support of gay marriage. The article written by Jonathan Moran of The Daily Telegraph noted in part: ‘Bashir said: “I feel very much in favour and supportive of that, for people to be happy and fulfil one another. Gay marriage is the way.”

Prof. Bashir added: “I wish there wasn’t so much talk about it, you know, let’s just do it.”’

Here's a public figure, not a politician, but a former medical practitioner, University Chancellor and NSW Governor backing something that I don’t agree with.

I note that the words “just do it” is a strong call to action which says forget discussion on  the subject and just change the definition of marriage to the union of two individuals, regardless of gender. I wonder if this is out of frustration or resignation that the proponents of same-sex marriage have just made it so hard for us to stick to our guns.

A few years ago, I wrote in defence of traditional marriage, that sentiment has not changed. The government of the day was toying with the idea, so I thought I would put something in writing. Now, with a change in the political landscape that same side of politics is proposing an Act of Parliament to change the definition of marriage.

After all if one is to believe the media, the majority of Australians are in favour of “Marriage Equality”. Hence, it now follows that the Marriage Act should be changed to remove “a union between a man and a woman” to one between two persons, of any gender.

As the LGBT movement would have you believe this is a matter of equality. Really? I put to you that it is not. Maybe, the movement means “sexual equality”, hence, two men or two women as a union is the same as that of a man and a woman.

Marriage is the bedrock of the traditional family. And, marriage is the start of a family. Thus, the pro-creation of children is part of this equation. The vow made by a man and woman during the marriage ceremony is also the protection of the children that result from the union.

Going back to the “equality” issue. A man and woman in marriage can naturally have children from that union. A same-sex couple cannot do so naturally. So, the confusion (or obfuscation) that the proponents of this change in the Act are trying to achieve is to make something natural into whatever. Hey, we can adopt, do insemination, so why not?

Again, really? From the not normal, we make normal. This doesn’t follow. Natural sexual complementarity and potential fertility is not the same, just because of changing the definition of marriage.

I admit, this is politicised, so it’s a matter of pleasing the electorate.

Well, I put up a higher call.

As a Christian, I consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9). After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 341,  p. 96).

And, just as important, we must not forget the consequences of re-defining marriage. Removing gender will mean that husbands and wives will be made to be wholly  interchangeable social constructs. And, here’s the rub. People who adhere to the natural definition of marriage will be characterised as “old-fashioned”, "bigots", or worse.

And, they will be made to answer to the law. As well, ministers of religion will be made to heel to the new definition and required to go against beliefs and teachings that their church has propounded for centuries. And, maybe end up in jail, as a consequence.

Note that this is not alarmism or muddying the waters. Look at other countries and you will see that these consequences are real, the Culture of Life Foundation article posted about this possibility in 2014. This is unfortunately now a fact and is manifesting itself in a number of countries, where the preaching against same-sex marriage is regarded as hate speech.

I read about clergy in Holland, France and Spain that have already been threatened with prosecution for “hate speech” for upholding their faith tradition on marriage.

Let's not forget that this change in the Act is the thin edge of the wedge. Taking the precedent, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil. I also read about an incident in Holland where authorities were asked to allow polygamy, extending the equality thinking. There is also a push using equality and the new marriage definition to allow polygamy in other countries.

These are only some examples of the consequences of changing the Act. There are more, if you care to look into it further.

Another thought is the children in same-sex marriage. Is this a normal environment for children? I am sure that there are or probably have been normal adults growing from childhood in a home with same-sex parents.

However, the story of Katy Faust also comes to mind. She grew up in a home with same-sex parents and wrote a letter to Justice Kennedy of the US Supreme Court (equivalent to our High Court in Australia). Father John Flader includes her story in his latest post in defence of traditional marriage, as well as put forward more interesting points.

There are more considerations as to why we should stick with the current definition of marriage. I will just make one more point.

Finally, changing the Act will really only benefit a few. Mind you, a very vocal few. It is not about changing an age-old definition, but to quiet that minority who will benefit from this change. My thinking is so that they can now say “will you marry me?” instead of “will you civil union me?” Not a good enough reason to change not just traditional beliefs, but also Christian teaching and the bedrock of the unit of society that is under attack—the family.

Let's leave what has worked for centuries alone and not redefine something just to please a few and cause many things we may not have considered. Let's keep marriage a sacred (read solemn, if you prefer) union between a man and a woman.

Let's not cheapen the abortion issue

It was a surprising essay from our parish priest, Fr. John Boyle, this week. Headline is “Prime Minister Reignites Abortion Debate”. He starts by saying how he has supported the prime minister. He applauds her as the first female prime minister, but has really freaked out at the speech she gave to her womens’ supporter group “Women for Gillard”.

His issue was on brining up abortion. His words were “she has to go!” He notes how she has put gender at the centre of the campaign leading to the September 14 election. He is specially unhappy “of her attempt to gag me [Fr John] from commenting on the rights of the unborn by claiming that ‘abortion again become the plaything of men who think they know better.’”

He continues: “abortion is not a plaything. Such a gender based statement  is a further sign of her divisiveness. It further erodes her support by alienating the Catholic vote and such provocation will mean every bishop in the country will...come out with what will appear as anti-Labor rhetoric.”

It’s a sad day when nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond the reach of politicians who want to cling to power. Now, this includes the topic of abortion. I believe that the PM is clutching at anything that can help her stay in the Lodge. This now includes abortion and letting men decide about how women behave. She has lashed out at men in suits and blue ties.

Funny that the following day Kevin Rudd wore a blue tie. Hmm.

But, I am not here to discuss politics. I want to put forward the Catholic point of view vis-a-vis abortion. And, now as a man who wants to defend the rights of the unborn, I am one of those faceless men who wants to control women’s right to abortion. Really?

First of all, I cannot and will not change a person’s free will. The will to decide on a course of action. It is a God-given right and cannot be taken away. Now, of course, it has to be limited. Otherwise, we all just do what we damn well please. Take someone else’s property, maybe trash it, run red lights, speed, take illegal drugs and so on.

Now, I speak out for the powerless unborn child. Tony Abbott has posited the point made popular by Bill Clinton, abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Notwithstanding his Catholic upbrining and his beliefs, Abbott should know that abortion is not acceptable to the church. I can only surmise that this is a politicians answer. Again, the free will thing cannot be undermined. But, also what about the unborn child? His or her rights.

What about the sancitity of human life?

I just want to voice my sadness, added to that of our parish priest, that abortion is made a play thing of politics. The fact that this is more than anything a state’s issue and not a federal one doesn’t downplay the person who put it up and used it against faceless men (read the likes of Tony Abbott) and you have a crazy sideshow to how cheap human life can be.

Yes, it is now just another pawn in the political mess we are in. I am tempted to add the loss of lives in the boat people issue, but I won’t go there.

I suppose, we should really do what we can only do. Other than vote for the right of a child, pray for these people. After all, He did say, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Me thinks they do and they just don’t give a toss.

You decide.

The announced Royal Commision: some thoughts

My first post on this blog was a result of my frustration at the lack of knowledge of “Catholic” politicians. Not knowing basic tenets of their faith, they unknowingly mouth out stuff against their own faith.

And, it’s on again. This time with the announcement of a Royal Commission on Paedophilia in churches and so on.

Listening to a talkshow, one got the feeling that as it this has to do with protecting children, the Seal of Confession should be dispensed with. The radio host I was listening to talked over a Catholic woman who rang in defence of the Seal. Another “Catholic” who called previously in support of breaking the Seal was given a fair hearing.

And, we have some “Catholic” politicians calling for the Seal to be broken, as well. To be fair, Ted Baillieu is one exception.

Now for some of my thoughts.

These sort of enquiries/commissions can end up as witch hunts. Already murmuring in some sectors call for just concentrating on the Catholic Church. Again, a voice who spoke in defence of the Seal is Andrew Bolt, a non-Catholic. Not only when interviewed did he think that it should be kept sacred but also in several blog posts.

He’s already labelled the effort as a possible witch hunt against the Catholic Church.

Okay, we all love our kids, so we should protect them anyway possible. And, the crime against children is abhorrent, made worse by the status of the perpetrator, be he a priest, religious, person in authority or an older relation. But, destroying an important character of the sacrament is going too far. Yes, the sacrament—one of seven that Jesus Christ instituted while he was on earth.

We heard cries of the “law is above religion”. Well, there is separation of church and state. Religion is not above the law but works with it and is on another plane. After all, did Christ not mean that when he said to give to Caesar (the emperor), what is Caesar’s (the emperor’s) and to God what is God’s. (Ref. Mk 12:17, Lk 20:25) The seal of confession is recognised in law in the UK and many commonwealth countries, in that what is disclosed therein one cannot use such information as evidence. I am not a lawyer, so this is way over my head, suffice to say that there is pretty much common acceptance of the principle, the Irish effort to do otherwise, notwithstanding. And, many countries respect this principle as well.

“We are now in the 21st century, the seal is archaic.” Sacraments were instituted by our Lord for all time. It’s only been two millenia since their institution and archaic they are not. They are living instruments of our faith that will be with us ‘til the end of time. Much as some lefties would have us believe otherwise.

The sacred trust of the penitent and confessor is really akin to client-lawyer privilege, or patient-doctor confidence. The penitent is assured that his sins will not be broadcast to the world. Likewise what a client or patient makes known to his lawyer/doctor. Not only that, in this sacrament, the priest stands in the place of our Lord. So, the sacred nature of the sacrament is even more so, when you put God in the confessional.

As example, the much referred story of St John Nepomucene, confessor to the queen, who would not divulge what he heard in confession to the king (Wenceslaus IV), despite being tortured and in the end killed by drowning on 20 March, 1393. He kept the secret of her confession to his grave.

And, so it is. I see many priests ending up in jail rather than disclosing what they have learned in confession, should the Seal be broken by legislative fiat. A sad day that will be.

There are other points I wanted to discuss, including the prerogative of a confessor to refuse absolution. But, let me end with this thought. If anything the person who will most probably confess is the victim.

A priest I speak with regularly suggests that when this is made known to a priest, he will suggest a talk outside the confessional. There, the priest can make suggestions not bound by the Seal. And, I posit that a paedophile who confesses his/her sins will need to have a firm purpose of amendment to merit absolution. Also, that person can be made to report his/her crime to the police as part of the penance.

So, considering all of these points, do we really want to break the Seal of Confession? Break the sacrament Christ founded, kill all sense of secrecy we now enjoy and destroy our trust in its secrecy, I don’t think so.

The Catholic Church: A version from Bishop Fulton J Sheen

A great preacher and catholic apologist, Servant of God, Fulton J Sheen, former Archbishop of Rochester, NY, has put many words to print and even more over the airwaves.

I came across the following text from the website of St Malachys church in NYC. It's worth a read and some contemplation.

What Is The Catholic Church?
 by Bishop Fulton Sheen

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

Marriage Sunday: Let's hear it for Marriage

You have to hand it to our Parish Priest, John Boyle. He really is good with his homilies. To introduce Marriage Sunday, inter alia, he referred to the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, as a single parent. It's a twist on that oft told story that I never considered.

While he (Fr Boyle) spoke mostly on the parable, which was after all the gospel, he did speak about Marriage and its sanctity.

Many marriages, regretfully, end in divorce or separation. But, that doesn't mean that the state (or rather the vocation to wedded life) is finished, or not something today's singles strive for.

It is still the best state for a family and for raising children.

I must admit that the Same Sex Adoption bill passing through NSW Parliament is a win for those pushing to have same sex unions recognised as "marriage". And, like many things which the normal order of things has been changed for various reasons, political correctness included, it's a slipper slope we now encounter for those who want to keep the millenia old definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

At the risk of offending my friends who are in same sex unions, I must nail my colours to the mast. Marriage should still be that, a union between a man and a woman.

In the political arena, we can take some consolation that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not want to introduce a bill to recognise same sex unions as marriage. Well, so far.

After all Labor now has the Greens on their loose coalition and one of their platforms is to have same sex marriages, we can only wait and see.

And, if I remember that Senator Bob Brown in an effusive mood, after announcing the "coalition" with the Labor government, expounded on some of things not agreed on with the latter. One of these was same sex marriages. And, he said that it’s time has come, citing as an example what is already law in Catholic Spain.

I wonder if he has referring to the 15th century under the rule of Isabella and Ferdinand, referred to as “Isabel, la católica” and “Fernando, el católico”, respectively. As, the current Madrid government is separate from the Catholic Church's heirarchy. And, the law was passed by that government against the Church's wishes.

Well, we live in interesting times. The present "hung parliament" and the current government still has to get rolling and whether the Greens will push this agendum together with its environmental agenda is still to be seen.

If we still consider marriage as a sacred union, which our Lord affirmed "what therefore God has joined togther, let no man put asunder" (Mark 10:9), let's hear it for Marriage. Let's support those who plan to marry, are married and especially those that aspire to the sacrament of Matrimony.

After all our Lord not only "restored the original order of matrimony but raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. He gave spouses special grace to live out their marriage as a symbol of Christ's love for His bride the Church". (Compendium of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church p. 96).

So, to those in the state or about to step into the state of marriage, hear, hear.

Catholics believe in reincarnation...what?

The current federal election has been very tempting to commment on. However, I have refrained from doing so, until today.

A throw-away line in a morning news program really got me thinking about a number of things. The line was in relation to Tony Abbott's saying that "Work Choices" was dead and buried, in fact cremated.

The speaker said something along the lines that well, Abbott, who is catholic, believed in reincarnation, so who knows what can happen if electred. Wow. As a practising catholic, I couldn't believe my ears.

I didn't realise that we are supposed to believe in reincarnation.

Was the speaker talking about another religion. I don't think so. Abbott has always been fair game (as any politician is considered public property). And, the criticism of this man is not only about his past, but things like his "budgie smuggler" outfit. Not sure why this is a problem, as I believe he is a life guard and that's what life guards wear.

But, his religion is also considered fair game. Now, I personally think that the press should draw the line at faith (or lack of it). As an aside, I wonder why the PM's lack of faith is sacred. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Tempted as I am to comment further, I will refrain.

Going back to the line on reincarnation. A dictionary definition is "the rebirth of a soul in a new body". Did the speaker really think that this was part of Catholic teaching? Did he confuse the church with some other religion or belief? Or, did he mean "resurrection".

Ah, that word is in the last sentence of the Creed, recited during mass and is a prayer itself. Resurrection of the dead is a teaching of the faith. Something that we believe will happen on the last day.

Big difference. Resurrection is rising from the dead. It is not reincarnation, which is totally different.

Hopefully, it was just a slip of the tongue. Though the speaker had a law backgroundand should have known the difference.

Still let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Or should we? Stuff like this given out by the fourth estate is in my opinion not acceptable. Get your facts right before you report.

And, especially when it concerns something personal and important as a person's faith. One should be doubly careful.

The memo from the UK Foreign Office on the Pope: some thoughts

I was just reading some comments on the UK's Foreign Office memo on what the Pope should do on his forthcoming visit to that country. This was, in my opinion, not only insensitive by insulting.

According to Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph on his post the day after the memo was published (26 April, 2010):

Then I read the story and it turned out that this wasn’t, after all, a back-of-the-envelope note circulated at some boring forward planning meeting for the papal visit, as the gag about the Pope doing forward rolls seemed to suggest, or a bad-taste email to cheer up the office. These were “far-fetched” elements of a memo circulated to top civil servants around Whitehall, by members of the Papal Visit Team, along with an asking-for-it instruction: “Please protect; this should not be shared externally.” Hell, a note like that is tantamount to removing the little word “not” and begging for trouble.

And, he notes further:

It reflects, though, something of the mood of embarrassment in political circles about the Pope’s visit; you could sense it when the party leaders were asked about it during their debate. What we seem to miss in all this is that Pope Benedict didn’t just invite himself to Britain. Gordon Brown formally asked him to come when he visited the Vatican last February. Indeed, the Prime Minister wrote in the Catholic weekly The Tablet recently: “What struck me most that day was his personal kindness, for when he did me the honour of granting me an audience, he also insisted on welcoming my wife Sarah and our two boys. Naturally, Britain’s Catholics will feel a particular joy and pride in the Holy Father’s visit. My message is that that sense of joy should extend to people of all faiths and none.”

Then, a few days later when the leader of the head of the team in charge of the Papal visit was revealed, he notes that there are people in the Catholic heirarchy who are not happy with the visit and that "the Catholic Church in this country [the United Kingdom} is (a) not wildly enthusiastic about Benedict XVI, and (b) paralysed by political correctness."

Political Correctness, wow. If that's true, it's really sad that PC is so pervasive, common courtesy and politeness is now out the window.

Now, reflecting on the FO's memo and say the memo were on the visit of the leading Imam from a foreign country, I wonder what the memo would read. Let me posit this, probably super politically-correct to the point of being obsequous.

Thompson further said that "the four-strong FO team was led by a member of an ethnic minority and included a gay man. There’s nothing wrong with that: they could have done a fantastic job, particularly if the team had included a practising Catholic (perhaps from an ethnic community – they’re the ones who go to Mass these days). But they didn’t." He comments on the members of the heirarchy, especially a monsignor. I will not comment on that as this is not within the points I wanted to put forward.

If you, dear reader, had any doubt that the negative sentiment against the Pope, the Catholic Church and its members, including the heirarchy does not exists, please open your eyes.

The head of the FO team was put on other duties. I'm not sure if he was even reprimanded.

According to the Daily Mail Online post of 28 April:

Mr Noorani, 31, is far more senior than the Foreign Office has made out. Officials desperate to limit the damage have tried to play down his role, insisting he was merely a junior worker who acted without any authority.

But in fact Mr Noorani's title is 'Head of Papal Visit Team' and he is in charge of the staff preparing for the visit.

Until 2007, he was the press secretary at the British embassy in Moscow, trusted to handle delicate relations during the crisis over the poisoning of dissident Alexanda Litvinenko.

So, a high ranking FO member and no rebuke.

I am really stumped, what do you think?

A good take on Benedict XVI on the fifth anniversary of his election

To add to the many lines of type on the Holy Father, permit me to just write a few lines today.

Again, I checked out Damian Thompson's blog and found a great post on the pope. And, on the fifth anniversary of his election, it is quite fitting.

Thompson outlines a few things on the need of reforming, on the pope's background, his vision for the future and so on.

Allow me to quote from Thompson's blog:

How to sum up the particular vision of Benedict? In an article for Catholic World Report, the Ratzinger scholar Tracey Rowland quotes a line from the 1963 Hollywood film, The Cardinal: “The Church … thinks in centuries, not decades.” Fr Ratzinger is reported to have been a consultant for the film; he would certainly endorse that particular line. As Dr Rowland argues, Benedict wishes above all to lay the groundwork for healing the schisms that have torn limbs from Catholic Christianity, by purifying the worship of the Church in a way that enables Christians who are Catholics at heart to return into communion with Peter.

He understands – as no Pope before him has done – that conservative Anglo-Catholics are not Protestants, but aspiring Catholics for whom the scandalously bad worship of the post-Vatican II Church is a spiritual, not just an aesthetic, obstacle to reunion. Hence the Ordinariate provision, a structure for ex-Anglicans that will be set up soon but will take years to reach maturity (if it is not sabotaged). Hence also the removal of virtually all restrictions on the celebration of the classical form of the Roman Rite – to my mind, the boldest and finest single achievement of Benedict’s pontificate to date.

And, quite importantly he notes that "Correctly orientated worship, believes Pope Benedict, is a sine qua non for the operation of the redeeming love of Christ in the world. That is why his request that priests should say Mass facing a crucifix on the altar is so important to him; he would prefer that the celebrant faced eastwards, in the same direction as the congregation, but at least the central crucifix helps ensure that the consecration is not directed at the people, which would make it more like a Protestant shared meal than a sacrifice."

May I suggest you visit Thompson's blog for more details.

Where's the truth, when any assertion doesn't need to be proven?

Let's face it, if you open your mouth in support of the church you're immediately on the back foot. And, if you decide that attacking the church is the way to go, you're right on!

It's a worry, isn't it? When I took Argumentation and Debate many years ago, we were taught that it is incumbent to him who asserts to prove his assertion, not he who denies.(He who asserts must prove, not he who denies.)

Wow, in this day of trial by media, if someone beats you to the punch with a wild assertion, you're immediately on the back foot. Why? For crying out loud, why?

If I can again go back to stuff we learned in Philosophy, what if I asked you "Have you you stopped beating your wife?" Answer "Yes" and you immediately brand yourself a "wife-beater" and if you answer "No", worse, you are still a wife-beater.

Let's face it, with the constant attack on the Catholic Church, in the current atmosphere of you're wrong if I accuse you as such (never mind if I just made up the acusation), what do you do?

Not sure, really, but this is the position the Pope find himself in.

Yes, it seems a no-win situation. The accusers are on the front foot. And, the media are so far behind them, it's not funny.

Well, here's a thought, we also learned then, that an assertion without proof can be denied without proof. I was going to quote the Latin, but, well, forget it.

Heck, you accuse me as whatever, well, I deny it. So, since you have not given any proof in support of your allegation, well, I do likewise. I present no proof of my innocence.

Just imagine if the judicial system was run in this way. Wow.

It's a worry, isn't it?

Again, I ask you dear reader to step back and ask yourself the question: Is this a media beat up that's gone too far? Is the truth lost somewhere in the prejudice against the Church?

If I mouth what is supposedly the truth (the line pushed by the media) am I now being used as a tool to spread this prejudice? To spread the vitriol? The contumely?

Am I so silly as to just join the bandwagon that's pushing this? Another, non-thinking tool of big media?

Well, you tell me.

New accusations on the Pope merit a closer look

Last night a number of news services showed a letter signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger, which purported to protect the disgraced American priest Fr Stephen Kiesle. One service did say that the letter was taken out of context.

Of course, those out there with an anti-catholic bias would say "Of course, they'd say that."

The story purports to implicate Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as complicit in protection of clergy involved in paedophilia.

Well, again, we see a media frenzy so anti-catholic, it's just not funny. When one slings mud, especially at someone dressed in all-white, some of it will stick.

As mentioned in an earlier post,it is so easy to do that with a well-known figure, like the Pope.

Let's go back to the media frenzy. And, put it into perspective.
I am grateful to Phil Lawler for pointing out just how this whole thing is one big media frenzy. So frenzied that no one really questions "stories", as long as they are anti-catholic.

Lawler's principal point is that journalism standards are so low, no one who reported the story bothered to ask questions.

Lawler presents the questions, thus:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.
• Had Oakland's Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest's application.
• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle's dismissal from the priesthood.
• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.
• Did Cardinal Ratzinger's reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.
• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.
• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle's predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation-- before the case ever reached Rome.

He further states: "This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest's misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican-- which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s -- wanted to consider all such cases carefully. "

He also questions media competence, with the following point: "Competent reporters, when dealing with a story that involves special expertise, seek information from experts in that field. Capable journalists following this story should have sought out canon lawyers to explain the 1985 document-- not merely relied on the highly biased testimony of civil lawyers who have lodged multiple suits against the Church."

The latter point is interesting as it posits the interested parties who will gain from the media picking up this story.

Back to Lawler's post:"If they had understood the case, objective reporters would have recognized that they had no story. But in this case, reporters for the major media outlets are far from objective." He states further:

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:
…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.
Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!
No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

So, what do you think? Media frenzy on an easy target? Anti-catholic bias again showing its face?

Makes one wonder.

Some more thoughts on the Pope in all the child abuse accusations

I must admit I re-started my blog with my last post, which has ended up as a defence of the Pope.

Again, a few points:

1. This blog was set-up to defend the faith. Nail colours to the mast and all that. In other words, rather than quietly sit back while people took pot shots at our faith, this blog wanted to fire back some potshots in defence of the faith.

2. What I wanted to emphasise more than anything was the lop-sided view that seems to be out there. The anti-catholic leaning, the anti-Pope and so on.

Now, I suppose that one cannot defend the faith without defending the temporal leader. And, at present, that is His Holiness, Benedict XVI.

3. What I said earlier was to put another slant to all the accusations against the Pope. And, as an example of how he has gone against the tide was his treatment of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado, who seems to have had Papal favour from the previous Pontiff.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger went after Maciel, despite that favour the former enjoyed from John Paul II.

I don't want to go further on this point, but do want to include some quotes from another blog. Also, from the same Telegraph stable, that of George Pitcher. BTW, he is an Anglican priest. Take that for whatever it's worth.

He says, inter alia:

Cardinal Schonborn has also revealed that he had discussed the allegations against Cardinal Groer with Pope Benedict when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The then Cardinal Ratzinger had apparently wanted cardinal Groer to be properly investigated. But a group inside the Vatican – “the diplomatic party in the State Secretariat who wanted to shove everything on to the media”, according to The Tablet – had protected him. Cardinal Schonborn distinctly recalls Ratzinger saying afterwards: “The other party got its way.”

He goes to mention Ratzinger's refusal to accept favours from the Legion, when he (the cardinal) went after Maciel. Then Pitcher adds:

The role of financial corruption in this crisis gives it another moral gravity. But Pope Benedict seems to be emerging better than some observers, perhaps led by American lawyers who see a fast buck to be made from compensation class actions, would like him to. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he evidently tried in the past to be part of the solution, rather than an accessory to the problem. As Pope, he really does have the opportunity and authority to be that solution.

Now, this doesn't put paid to the whole affair. It does, however, point out from another source, some points not covered earlier.

And, to give this more gravitas, as if it needed it, Damian Thompson, in a comment under the forementioned post, states:

This is a clear and fair analysis from an Anglican commentator. George, you put to shame Catholic hacks who have lazily repeated inaccurate statements in the media just because they hate the Pope.

Again, I put the above points for all it's worth.

Let's try to get our focus right in the many accusations against the Church

It's been ages, I must admit and I've been looking for something to write about in the last month or two. So, here goes.

Let's tackle the attack on the Catholic Church, with regards the accusations of child molestations and so on. First of all, let's get this clear: I do not condone the attack on the weak and vulnerable. Further, I condemn whoever uses a position of authority to take advantage of the weak and vulnerable.

And, if that someone is a man of the cloth, someone who has taken up the mantle of priest or religious, I have nothing to say in his defence.

Now, permit me to set out a a few things:

First of all, the accusations we hear about are not recent. A lot of them go back decades. Now, let's get this clear, even if these were centuries past, they are not condoned. No, they are condemned. Time does not loosen the gravity of the crime (better yet, the sin) involved.

Secondly, let's look at the current situation. Do you note that the spotlight is firmly focused on the Catholic Church and its heirarchy? I wonder why.

Maybe, I feel paranoid for the church or am a skeptic by nature, but it seems to me the anti-catholic forces are out in force. And, who but the Pope as target. Why not? The most obvious, most visible and the top-of-the-heap, the head honcho. Peter's representative, the Vicar of Christ himself.

Now, first an aside which does not, in any way, diminish the gravity of the wrong doings, the hurt, the sin of paedophilia, the taking advantage of the vurnerable, the abuse of the power and influence of the Roman collar and so on.

Recently, our parish priest talked about this. He made no excuses for the wrong doing but tried to put it into context. He mentioned that paedophilia happened at home. Perpetrators were members of the family. And, I believe that he posited the position that most of these crimes (sins) were committed by family members.

And, since many of these abhorrent crimes (sins) were not reported, we will never know how widespread these are.

Have you ever wondered why the spotlight is on the Catholic Church. What about other religions and denominations? Are we to assume that they are squeaky clean?

Now, I don't mention this to get the Church off the hook. On, the contrary, I want to clear the air, though I doubt that I can, considering the limitations of this forum.

And, thirdly, the attack on the Pope himself. Now to try to set out the facts on every accusation that involves the Holy Father will take a lot of time and bandwidth. And, I feel that it is beyond the scope of what I wanted to put forward.

Suffice it to say, let's look at a couple of things about what Benedict XVI has done before and during his papacy.

Allow me to quote from Damian Thompson's blog. Thompson is editor of Telegraph Blogs, a journalist specialising in religion. In his blog on 5 April, 2010, in response to the Daily Telegraphs' editorial, he put forward, inter alia:

1. The betrayal of the innocent by a small minority of Catholic priests and a much larger proportion of Catholic bishops and bureaucrats was truly monstrous. Pope Benedict XVI was right to acknowledge the Church’s deep shame. His predecessor should have done so.

2. Although the Pope may not have been vigilant enough when he was Archbishop of Munich, once he was in the Vatican he was disgusted to discover the scale of the crimes of predator priests – and fought a sometime lonely battle against complacent colleagues, from whom he eventually had to wrest authority to deal with canonical aspects of these cases in 2001. After that, their prosecution was speeded up. No wonder, since the Italian monsignori who previously dealt with them had spent most of the day plotting and stuffing their faces in their favourite trattorie.

3. Benedict XVI is still not well served by the people around him.

Now, this post is not a position in support of the Pope, as such. It is, I hope, a sincere effort to put a just light to expose the truth.

As an example of what the Pope has done in the past in his efforts to set the records straight and to do justice to his priestly calling, let's look at what he has done with regards to Fr Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of Legions of Christ.

Again, I quote from Thompson's blog:

The NCR [National Catholic Reporter] can’t stand Pope Benedict, but it does reveal that Cardinal Ratzinger refused the 'donations' (charitable bribes) that the Legion sucessfully pressed on other senior Vatican clergy, sometimes to gain access to John Paul II:

In 1997 [Ratzinger] gave a lecture on theology to Legionaries. When a Legionary handed him an envelope, saying it was for his charitable use, Ratzinger refused. “He was tough as nails in a very cordial way,” a witness said.

A few years later, it was Cardinal Ratzinger who ignored John Paul’s wishes and moved against against Maciel, to the fury of the latter’s allies, who included Cardinal Angelo Sodano and John Paul’s secretary, Msgr (now Cardinal) Stanislaw Dziwisz.

In 2004, John Paul – ignoring the canon law charges against Maciel – honored him in a Vatican ceremony in which he entrusted the Legion with the administration of Jerusalem’s Notre Dame Center, an education and conference facility. The following week, Ratzinger took it on himself to authorize an investigation of Maciel."

And, while I have gone off what I was originally trying to tackle, I wanted to put forward that the Pope has done something which the many Legionnaires believe is just not on. Attacking someone that many of them consider a saint, is just something too terrible to contemplate. And, he did this I presume in search of the truth and justice. I note that it was also against the wishes of his own superior, the then Pope.

And, just for the record, Maciel died in disgrace aged 87 in 2008. He was pushed aside and taken from the helm of the Legion.

This was done by the Pope against a strong phalanx of defenders.

I wonder, is this something someone who wants to sweep things under the carpet would do? I don't think so.

More in my next post.

A thought on pregnancy: when does a fetus become a person?

A recent article in The Australian by Padriac Murphy notes that Dr. Caroline de Costa, author of the book “RU-486” stated that “says Mr Abbott told her during a meeting in November 2005 that he would rather be "knocked out" if he were a woman having an abortion.”

According to the article, she said that it was "disappointing to find how poorly informed Abbott was on the topic of medical abortion compared to many of his party's backbenchers,’ Dr De Costa writes in the book.’

“ ‘He also made the quite incredible remark that if he were having an abortion, he would like 'to be knocked out and have it done surgically'.

"Suppressing several possible rejoinders, I simply said that while some women would certainly prefer surgical abortion, others would like to have the option of medical abortion."

And, the article notes that “RU-486 is available widely overseas, can be taken orally and aborts a pregnancy without the need for invasive surgery.

“Dr de Costa and her north Queensland colleague Mike Carrette are the only practitioners in Australia authorised to prescribe the drug. Dr De Costa said RU-486 was a safe alternative to surgical abortion, and that it could be used to treat a variety of other medical complaints, including the possible prevention of some cancers, but large pharmaceutical companies had been discouraged from marketing the drug by anti-abortionists.

“She was eventually allowed to prescribe RU-486, or mifepristone, after a private members bill passed in February last year removed Mr Abbott's power to veto drugs approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.”

That article also said that she has used it to abort the pregnancies of 12 women who suffered conditions including thrombosis, severe depression, hypertension and eclampsia. She also said she was frustrated that RU-486 was not readily available, and had considered forming her own company to market the drug.

“Dr De Costa writes in her memoir that the point at which a fetus or embryo becomes a human was too complex an issue to be resolved by either scientists or theologians. ‘What I have seen is this: the fetus becomes a person when the woman decides it does.

“ ‘With wanted pregnancy, even if unplanned, this may be very early on. With unwanted pregnancy, this often becomes a difficult and deeply personal decision for the woman, but that is the decision she makes."

Martin Fitzgerald, who teaches Religion and Philosophy at Redfield College, comments:

“Dr de Costa tells us that the criterion which should decide when a fetus becomes a person is “when the woman decides it does”. Let’s hope that Dr de Costa in her memoir RU-486 explains how we are to justify to future generations that their mothers were the ones who decided whether they were persons or not and they were just the lucky ones whose mothers decided they were.”

If we take Dr de Costa's thinking on this, we really should be thankful to our mothers that we are all here. Pity the aborted, fetuses who were unlucky enough to have mothers who thought that they were not worthy of being persons.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

World Youth Day

Last week, we had the Cross and Icon for the World Youth Day celebrations in our parish. It was a great experience to see these special items, to witness the faith and the love of our parishoners and visitors.

It's going to be a great event and I'm sure many Christians are looking forward to this event.

It's only a year away.

As a preview, here's a great video on the Sydney WYD, you may want to checkout.

The video shows past events, the cross and icon, including the arrival in Sydney from New Zealand, and, of course, the theme song by Guy Sebastian.

Please pass this on.

Is debate one sided on the Stem Cell Research Bill?

A friend sent me an article by Christopher Pearson (The Australian) which commented on the ignorance of certain protagonists involved in this issue. This got me thinking more on the issue

Allow me to make a few points based on that article and another one in The Australian.

Pearson pointed out that Cardinal Pell's admonition to the NSW pollies was "essentially a collegial response to contentious legislation rushed into the NSW parliament." He added that "Sydney's Anglican Archbishop Phillip Jensen condemned the bill just as forcefully as Pell did...He also warned that, if passed, the bill would 'enshrine in law the corrupt view that embryos used are not morally significant or important.' Despite that, Jensen was left unscathed, on this occasion at least, and almost all the media attention was on the cardinal."

I wonder why.

The cardinal seems to be a favourite target of what Pearson labelled as modernists and ultra-liberals. He commented that these people were "appalled at the idea of a bishop taking orthodoxy seriously and expecting the people responsible for the formation of young catholics to do likewise."

The cardinal is obviously an easy target. And, any chance to have a swipe at the Catholic Church is always a good thing for these people.

The focus is on whether the moral authority of the church is correct on this issue. If the church has a right to raise this matter, if it can influence thinking based on moral and faith issues.

What about the whole issue of the morality of the stem cell research? The members of parliament were allowed to vote guided by their conscience. A point I won't cover here, but this is well covered by Pearson's article.

As Catholics, we believe that life begins at conception. It doesn't happen at some later stage, but is a continuing process which begins at conception and ends in death.

Killing an embryo, whether for a noble reason like finding a cure for disease, or any other reason is just that. Killing. Ending life.

Frank Devine commented recently in the Australian that "Anti-Catholic, anti-Pell rabble rousing unfortunately distracted attention from what the cardinal actually said and wrote last week. As usual he was courteous, (thanking Premier Morris Iemma for allowing a conscience vote) calm and to the point.

"For example: 'The human embryo cannot develop as anything other than a human being. New laws would result in there being two classes of human embryo: those created to live and those manufactured to be eliminated in research. To produce a human embryo with the express purpose of destroying it is a perverse new direction for human experimentation.'

"A diligent inquirer, Pell pointed out that in 25 years of experiments with embryonic stem cells not one treatment had been suggested that warranted human clinical trials. By contrast, in the US alone, 1422 government-approved clinical trials were under way on the basis of laboratory experiments using adult stem cells. Adult stem cells had been used successfully in treating type one diabetes.

"Pell also took appreciative note of what secularists would categorise as the windfall news of successful experiments in Japan and the US in cloning cells from the skin of adult laboratory mice.

"Serious Catholic legislators undoubtedly gave serious thought to their decision to vote in favour of the stem cell bill. I sympathise with them. Catholic journalists face similar dilemmas, though we have more room for artful dodging.

"Pell's statement that there would be 'consequences in their life in the church' for Catholics who voted for the bill roused much indignation, with dopey talk of excommunication - these days reserved for the church's stubbornest enemies within."

I'll make further comment on this issue in another post. If you want to read the full text of Pearson's article click here, for Devine's article, click here.

More on Cardinal Pell and the pollies

If you have any opinion for or against what Cardinal Pell did recently, you may want to check out an internet poll asking for opinions on this.

It's being conducted by 2GB. No matter what you may think about the station, internet polling, or whether we should carry this theme any further, if you want to stand up and be counted, click here to go to the site.

Hopefully, you're on the Cardinal's side on this. Either way, make sure your opinion is heard and noted. It's a blog site, so you can leave your comments.

Great thought

Going for my morning walk, which I did not do for two days—because of the rain and laziness, I suppose, I noticed an interesting sticker at the back of a parked car.

I can't remember the exact words, but it said roughly: "Show that you are a man, kneel down and pray." That's great. Here's someone who has nailed his colours to the mast.

Who says that machismo means you are not disposed to pray, to acknowledge your Maker? To show that you are interested in communicating with your Lord, is not wimpy. On the contrary, it shows you care about your soul.

And, to show others that you pray, it shows that you are a man (or woman) who believes in God.

It is not something to be ashamed of.

You wonder about politicians

Being a good Aussie, I really cannot take our politicians too seriously.

Except, unfortunately, they can pass laws to make it hard for the rest of us. And, not just by the power of taxation which is vested in the state, but other means that they have over our lives.

The stem cell debate is a case in point. And, I add to that the lambasting that Cardinal Pell received in the hands of the NSW pollies.

And, this by supposed "catholic" MPs. Add to this the irony of the defence of the Cardinal by two non-catholic politicians. Both MPs of the upper house and members of the cabinet. I refer to the Treasurer and the Prime Minister.

I suppose to put the boot in John Howard was quoted as saying: "I found the abuse of Cardinal Pell by many Labor members of parliament and one or two others very strange.

"Labor members of parliament are ritually told how to vote by union bosses. Their preselections are threatened if they don't do certain things."

When asked by a journalist if Cardinal Pell should be in contempt of the NSW Parliament, the Prime Minister said that this was "over the top."

Finally, I would like to quote a letter written by a fellow parishoner at St Bernadette's Castle Hill, Dr. John James, which I quote in toto:

"The public statements by Messr's. Rees, Iemma and Watkins, amongst others, in
response to the public statements by Cardinal Pell on the Cloning Bill before the NSW Parliament are both interesting and disturbing for a number of reasons.

"The Cardinal is simply restating what the Church has been saying all around the world for some time now. There have been examples of similar statements during the last US presidential election,and more recently in both Mexico and Brazil by Pope Benedict.

"People who publicly identify themselves as Catholics and who occupy positions in which they are formulating legislation that will affect the lives of citizens in their constituencies, cannot support legislation, let alone introduce such bills, that seek to legalise the destruction of innocent human life, no matter how noble their stated goal.

"When John Watkins publicly rebukes the Cardinal for his statement and suggests that such statements are meant to deny him an expression of his conscience, he simply demonstrates that he understands neither what it means to be a Catholic nor how conscience, properly understood, works.

"Conscience is that voice we all hear within us that commands us, broadly, to do good and avoid evil. Conscience, however, doesn't decide what is good and evil but looks for guidance and reasons outside itself for making such decisions. The only people who think their conscience is the final arbiter of good and evil are the psychopaths.

"The Cardinal is reminding faithful Catholics that the Teaching Authority of the Church, when it is universally expressed on such a fundamental moral issue as this, is expressing the mind of Christ. 'He who hears you, hears Me.'

"A practicing Catholic, as Watkins and Iemma claim to be, who deliberately sets aside the Church's teaching, is a little like a judge who ignores the legal statutes. Their conscience is malformed, will arrive at incorrect conclusions and they will do much harm in the exercise of their public office as lawmakers.

"They, in my view, have publicly excommunicated themselves.

"Just watch these same guys scramble for public photo opportunities when Pope Benedict arrives in Sydney next year for World Youth Day! Their hypocrisy is dwarfed only by their ignorance."

This letter comes from someone, who is not only a practicing catholic, but a medical practitioner, who would not only know about the moral dilemma of stem cell research, but the ethical and other considerations.

Definitely makes you wonder about our pollies, doesn't it?