... I regularly make wide-ranging comments that conflict with policies of the Left and Right. I'm apolitical; the policies of Labor and Liberal are so similar to make the debate almost irrelevant. Most of my writing is informed by one underlying principle. It's called utilitarianism. It is the theory that when you are faced with a moral or political choice you should make the decision that will maximise human flourishing, where each person's interest counts equally.
The Left doesn't like me because I'm a fan of tough counter-terrorism laws and harsher sentences for sex and violent offenders. I also oppose euthanasia, abortion and dispute the desperate need for a reduction in greenhouse gases. I often upset the Right because I push for gay marriages, animal rights, no tax for the poor and mega taxes for the rich, multiculturalism and tolerance towards Muslim values.
Excerpt of most interest to me:
Salazar was above all things a Christian and a Catholic. Yet, for the revival of religion or the restoration of the Church he had done so little positively that some foreign observers had even taken scandal thereat. General Franco, who in so many ways resembled him, had done much more in 12. Why this? Some had attributed it to timidity. But Salazar was not timid. His personal influence had been exerted to its utmost for religion.
If then, he had moved so slowly there must have been grave reason. Salazar felt that State patronage exercised against the present disposition of important sections of opinion, would not help to anchor the Church in the hearts of the people.
He thought it wiser to give the Church freedom and let it rebuild from the base upwards upon new and better foundations than could be laid by any statesman setting it up as a department of the new State. In giving the Church liberty and equality before the law he had already done much.
"Tasmanian Labor-Green Coalition Government has released a discussion paper on a Human Rights bill"
Interesting comment by Mr. Schütz:
Yes, and I am not rejecting that centuries old tradition and synthesis in any way. The problem comes when this synthesis is read back into the exegesis of the scriptural passages, thus missing an important element in the understanding of the passage (nb. I am not saying that the passage cannot be legitimately understood in other ways, but that we must have appreciation for how it sounded to the first readers). When it comes to the Lutheran Catholic dialogue, it is quite appropriate to argue about “infused grace” or “imparted righteousness” over against “imputed righteousness” and “forensic justification”, as long as we understand that this was not Paul’s argument. And that is important, because the Lutheran argument is that Catholic doctrine is “unscriptural”, not “untrue”. The fact is that Lutheran doctrine is “unscriptural” too, because the scriptures they quote to support their position doesn’t address their position any more than it addresses the Catholic position.
Excerpts from an item from today's edition of the Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletin:
BRAZIL: CHURCH TEACHES MAN HIS DIGNITY AS CHILD OF GOD
VATICAN CITY, 28 OCT 2010 (VIS) - Prelates from the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (Northeast region 5) who have just complete their five-yearly "ad limina" visit were received this morning by the Holy Father. [...]
"First, the duty of direct action to ensure a just ordering of society falls to the lay faithful who, as free and responsible citizens, strive to contribute to the just configuration of social life, while respecting legitimate autonomy and natural moral law", the Holy Father explained. "Your duty as bishops, together with your clergy, is indirect because you must contribute to the purification of reason, and to the moral awakening of the forces necessary to build a just and fraternal society. Nonetheless, when required by the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls, pastors have the binding duty to emit moral judgments, even on political themes".
"When forming these judgements, pastors must bear in mind the absolute value of those ... precepts which make it morally unacceptable to chose a particular action which is intrinsically evil and incompatible with human dignity. This decision cannot be justified by the merit of some specific goal, intention, consequence or circumstance, Thus it would be completely false and illusory to defend, political, economic or social rights which do not comprehend a vigorous defence of the right to life from conception to natural end. When it comes to defending the weakest, who is more defenceless than an unborn child or a patient in a vegetative or comatose state?"
"When political projects openly or covertly contemplate the depenalisation of abortion or euthanasia, the democratic ideal (which is truly democratic when it recognises and protects the dignity of all human beings) is betrayed at its very foundations. For this reason, dear brothers in the episcopate, when defending life we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, rejecting all compromise and ambiguity which would conform us to the mentality of this world". [...]
AL/ VIS 20101028 (630)
[my square-bracketed interpolations]
Just this one:
October 29, 2010 at 2:52 am
Here’s the rectified link: