Thursday, August 19, 2010

Notes: Thursday, August 19, 2010

Bl. Mary of the Cross (Mary MacKillop) on voting

In today's Herald:

The soon to be canonised Mary MacKillop wrote in 1903 to the Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart before Australia's second federal election when women won the right to vote for the first time. ''Find out who are the members proposed for election and vote for those who are considered most friendly to the Church and Religion,'' she said, before adding a cautionary note.

''Every so-called Catholic is not the best man.''

[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/traditional-voting-patterns-20100818-12f8z.html?skin=text-only]

On the respective past careers of today's Federal Parliamentarians

Also in today's Herald:

... 97 per cent of today's federal parliamentarians come straight from careers as ''managers, administrators or professionals'', figures from the Parliamentary Library show. ... There is not a single tradesperson among them.
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/toffs-replace-tinsmiths-in-parliament-20100818-12f92.html?skin=text-only]

H.H. The Pope's three 'non-negotiables' in public morality

I was reminded of these by the political party fact sheet which The Archdiocese of Sydney's Life, Marriage and Family Centre published in last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly, and I thought that I'd like to keep them for future reference, and bring them to your attention, since they're quite good:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.

[Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the European People's Party on the Occasion of the Study Days on Europe,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html]

Fr. Flader on morality and voting (mostly good article) and usury (bad article)

The Rev. Fr. John Flader had a mostly good "Question Time" piece in the Sydney Catholic Weekly two Sundays ago on voting:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=7261&class=Features&subclass=Question Time

but unfortunately followed it up with a lamentable one last Sunday on usury:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=7278&class=Features&subclass=Question Time

Emily's List: Pro-abortion, of course, but all the way up to and including full term?

A writer to last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly said the following:

To have the financial and political support of Emily’s List, a candidate must support the abortion of a full term baby right up to the moment of birth.

Emily’s List won’t tolerate any restrictions on abortion, even for viable full-term babies.

[http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=2&subclassID=5&articleID=7280&class=Comment&subclass=Letters]

I checked the Emily's List official website, and though, as we know, Emily's List is pro-abortion, I couldn't find out whether this support is unconditional. Could any of my readers provide any evidence for this?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Eudes, Confessor, A.D. 2010

2 comments:

Cardinal Pole said...

The political party fact sheet to which I referred is available here (via this month's Life, Marriage and Family Centre e-mail bulletin):

http://www.lifemarriagefamily.org.au/Election2010.pdf

Cardinal Pole said...

In this comment:

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/msg/1282189018.html

at this Cath Pews discussion board thread:

http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1282126778.html

we find a link to an official Emily's List press release in which we read EMILY’s List Victorian Co-Convenor Moira Rayner quoted as saying that

"EMILY’s List has advocated for legislation in which the woman’s consent is the relevant factor not
subject to any gestational limits"
[http://www.emilyslist.org.au/images/stories/pdf/Media_Releases/2008/080819%20-%20EMILY's%20List%20Welcomes%20Bill%20to%20Decrminalise%20Abortion%20-%20MEDIA%20RELEASE.pdf]