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 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..."

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.

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.

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?

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?