Notes: Wednesday, December 7-Tuesday, December 20, 2011

1. "If present trends continue, Europe and Japan will lose half their population by the end of the century"

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=7&articleID=9327&class=Features&subclass=Cardinal's Comment

Labels: demography

2. Several web-pages on or relating to a recent development in U.S. foreign policy

2.1 "US ready to push for gay rights abroad"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/obama-warns-world-against-gay-and-lesbian-discrimination/story-e6frg6so-1226215897814

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-ready-to-push-for-gay-rights-abroad-20111207-1ojak.html?skin=text-only

http://www.smh.com.au/world/rights-of-gays-to-figure-in-us-foreign-aid-20111207-1oj4l.html?skin=text-only

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40020

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/12/09/obama-the-real-ugly-american/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/06/presidential-memorandum-international-initiatives-advance-human-rights-l

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40069

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/12/14/yet-another-ugly-american/

Labels: G.L.B.T., human rights, U.S.A.

2.2 "Nigeria’s bishops praise ban on public expression of homosexuality"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40081

Labels: G.L.B.T., Hierarchy, Nigeria

2.3 "[U.S.] Senate blocks El Salvador ambassador over homosexual-rights advocacy"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40099

Labels: G.L.B.T., U.S.A.

3. On two recent court cases involving polyamory:

Two court cases, one in Canada last month and one in Australia earlier in the year, show that while British-based law remains resolute against multiple partner marriage, it accepts that a common law threesome is not illegal or even necessarily family-unfriendly.

In the Canadian case, British Columbia Chief Justice Robert Bauman upheld Canada's anti-polygamy law, but left polyamorous families free from sanction if they do not commit an overt act of multiple marriage.

The Australian case involved a man whose wife had left him for another man and a woman, and taken the children. When the trio set up house together, mingled their respective offspring, and shared the same bedroom, the jilted husband applied to the court seeking an urgent order that the children be removed from the "immoral" household.

But magistrate Philip Burchardt rejected the application, saying the threesome seemed to be "thoroughly decent and honest people" and "I do not regard the relationship . . . as being damaging to the children."
[ellipsis in the original,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577]

(See here for Mr. Muehlenberg's reaction to that Weekend Australian article.)

Labels: families, marriage, polyamory

4. "Under a new policy approved by Pope Benedict XVI, the heads of other Roman dicasteries who wish to apply to the Pontiff for "special faculties" to handle problems outside the normal processes of canon law must apply through the Secretary of State, rather than appealing directly to the Pope"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40051

You can read the relevant Rescript, in its original Italian, on pp. 127-128 (pp. 41-42 of your browser) of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, here.

Labels: Roman Curia

5. "[Catholic] School forced to take same-sex couple's daughter"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/school-forced-to-take-samesex-daughter-20111214-1ou92.html?skin=text-only

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/senior-bishop-orders-school-to-reverse-ban/story-e6frg6so-1226221684482

Related coverage:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/school-rejects-daughter-of-same-sex-couple/story-e6frg6nf-1226221339567

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40072

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=29441

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=29456

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=29483

http://coo-eesfromthecloister.blogspot.com/2011/12/bishop-lesbians-and-poor-little-child.html

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2011/12/holy-father-please-terminate-mandate-of.html

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2011/12/campaign-to-abolish-religious.html

Labels: Catholic schools, G.L.B.T.

6. Dr. Arndt on the inadequacies of research findings which purport to show that children in the custody of same-sex couples do at least as well as those of opposite-sex ones:

It has never made sense that gay parents complain of prejudice and exclusion and in the same breath propose their children are suffering no adverse consequences. In fact, in recent years the research allegedly supporting these rosy claims has come under scrutiny and found to be sorely lacking.

"The methods are so flawed that these studies prove nothing," say Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai, experts in qualitative analysis.

"Not a single one of these studies was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research," concludes sociology professor Steven Nock.

Most of the scholarship on gay parenting is conducted by researchers sympathetic to gay concerns and fails to include proper controls, relies on very small samples and uses unreliable or invalid measures.

The reality is that while resilient children may do well despite the prejudice many encounter, others have a hard time.
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/prejudice-can-make-life-miserable-for-children-with-same-sex-parents/story-e6frgd0x-1226223351222]

I include the first and last sentences of that quotation in order not to seem to suggest that Dr. Arndt questions the findings because she thinks that same-sex 'parenting' is innately inferior to opposite-sex parenting; apparently, Dr. Arndt would attribute disadvantage experienced by children in the custody of same-sex couples relative to those of opposite-sex ones to 'discrimination', 'prejudice', 'homophobia', 'exclusion', the usual buzzwords.

Labels: families, G.L.B.T.

7. "JAY Weatherill[, the South Australian Premier,] has backed a push by a gay MP on his frontbench to allow same-sex couples to access IVF in South Australia"

And a "new law will at last give de facto lesbian couples in South Australia the same rights as others to be formally recognised as co-parents and ensure their child has two legal parents":

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/weatherill-backs-ivf-for-gays/story-e6frgczx-1226223400827

Labels: birth certificates, G.L.B.T., I.V.F., S.A.

8. "The Irish Government is now issuing the certificates to applicants who can prove their Irish ancestry"

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=3&articleID=9314&class=News&subclass=CW World

This is the website of that initiative:

http://www.heritagecertificate.ie/

Labels: Ireland

9. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference's (A.C.B.C.'s) Media Blog has, apparently, been officially launched

Here is its U.R.L.:

http://www.catholic.org.au/mediablog/

I say "apparently", judging by a recent article in the Sydney Catholic Weekly which provided a round-up of the acts of the recent A.C.B.C. plenary but which does not seem to be available on-line; the Media Blog has been on-line for some time now, so I presume that what occured at the plenary was its official launch.

Labels: A.C.B.C., blogs

10. Mr. DeLano has a blog:

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.com/

(That came to my attention via this comment at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog.)

Labels: blogs

Reginaldvs Cantvar
20.XII.2011

Notes: Tuesday, March 8-Tuesday, March 15, 2011 (part 1 of 2)

1. A couple of recent developments regarding euthanasia

1.1 "TASMANIA is poised to become the first state to legalise voluntary euthanasia"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/state-to-push-for-mercy-killing/story-e6frg6nf-1226017319925

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=25378

Labels: euthanasia, Tasmania

1.2 "SUPPORT for voluntary euthanasia in NSW is running at 83 per cent, with only 10 per cent of people implacably opposed"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/support-for-voluntary-euthanasia-at-85-20110310-1bpsm.html?skin=text-only

Labels: euthanasia

2. An amusing example of gay outrage

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/a-channel-ten-newsreader-has-apologised-after-calling-mardi-gras-disgusting-on-air/story-e6freuy9-1226017840089

When I blogged in late 2008 on the revelation that the N.S.W. State government was directly to fund the Sodomites' Parade, a commenter asked jokingly

But, Pole, it's so *colourful* - how could you possibly object?
[http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/10/taxpayers-to-fund-sodomites-parade.html?showComment=1223032140000#c296515895030110427]

Luckily I didn't say the following, or I might have been reported to some Anti-Discrimination Commissar:

“With respect, there’s a difference between colourful and disgusting in some cases.”

Mr. Tim Dick wrote about the fiasco in a column in Saturday's Herald:

... on Monday, Channel Ten's Ron Wilson suggested elements of the parade crossed the line from ''colourful'' to ''disgusting'' during an interview with the organisation's co-chairman, Pete Urmson. He batted the suggestion away without too much difficulty, and at the end of the discussion, Wilson congratulated him on the success of the festival and parade.

But it prompted a brief bit of predictable ''outrage'' nonetheless. He was homophobic, he was ignorant, he was narrow-minded. His prejudice was the disgusting thing. Something must be done, and someone inevitably threatened an anti-discrimination complaint.

Wilson was duly back the next morning to apologise for any offence caused, and for good measure threw in some support for the gay marriage campaign.

I wish he hadn't. The over-apology was an over-reaction to an over-reaction.

Journalists are supposed to ask difficult questions, and despite Wilson using a clanger of a word, it was one reference in a longer interview generally positive towards Mardi Gras. ...
[http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/whats-there-to-hide-its-a-sin-to-omit-the-emitters-20110311-1br71.html?skin=text-only]

Labels: G.L.B.T., Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, Ron Wilson

3. "Catholica no longer appears on the [Australian Catholic Bishops Conference] list of links"

http://beyondpews.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/quietly-removed/

Labels: A.C.B.C., Catholica Australia

4. Launch of a proposal for a N.S.W. Bill of Rights

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/shes-baaaackkk-20110309-1bnaq.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Bill of Rights, N.S.W.

5. Two "openly gay" N.S.W. Liberal election candidates "support ... removing exemptions to the Anti-Discrimination Act"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/state-election-2011/liberals-challenge-greens-for-the-gay-vote-20110311-1br84.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Adrian Bartels, Bruce Notley-Smith, discrimination, G.L.B.T., Liberal Party, N.S.W.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
15.III.2011

Notes: Friday, December 17, 2010

1. Vatican Information Service (V.I.S.) daily e-mail bulletin item on a press conference for H.H. The Pope's Message for the 2011 World Day of Peace

Full text, including hyperlink in the last sentence:

WORLD DAY OF PEACE: "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. THE PATH TO PEACE"

VATICAN CITY, 16 DEC 2010 (VIS) - In the Holy See Press Office at midday today, a press conference was held to present the Pope's Message for the forty-fourth World Day of Peace. The Day falls on 1 January 2011 and has as its theme: "Religious Freedom. The Path to Peace".

Participating in today's press conference were Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson, Bishop Mario Toso, S.D.B., Msgr. Anthony Frontiero and Tommaso De Ruzza, respectively president, secretary and officials of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Cardinal Turkson, speaking English, explained how this year's Message is made up of "an introductory reference to the attack on Christians in Iraq, the main body of the text which presents the meaning of religious freedom and the various ways in which it fashions peace and experiences of peace, and a concluding reflection on peace as a gift of God and as the work of men and women of goodwill, especially of believers.

"Religious freedom", he added, "is the theme of the Pope's Message for the World Day of Peace not only because that subject matter is central to Catholic social doctrine, but also because the experience of religious freedom - a basic vocation of man and a fundamental, inalienable and universal human right, and key to peace - has come under great stress and threat: From raging secularism, which is intolerant of God and of any form of expression of religion. From religious fundamentalism, the politicisation of religion and the establishment of State religions. From the growing cultural and religious pluralism that is becoming ever more present and pressing in our day".

"The Holy Father", the cardinal said, "sees the safeguarding of religious freedom in our multi-cultural, multi-religious and secularised world as one of the ways to safeguard peace".

"One of the important tasks that our world set for itself following World War II was the formulation, adoption and promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights", said the president of the pontifical council. Benedict XVI, he said, "is also worried about the increasing instances of the denial of the universality of these rights in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks".

"Religious freedom is not a right granted by a State", it "is derived, ... from natural law and from the dignity of the person, which are rooted in creation. Rather, the State and other public institutions, ... need to recognise it as intrinsic to the human person, as indispensable for integrity and peace".

Cardinal Turkson went on: "Religious freedom is a duty of public authority" but "it is not an unlimited right. ... Religious freedom refers primarily to man's freedom to express his being 'capax Dei': his freedom to respond to the truth of his nature as created by God and created for life with God without coercion or impediments. It is in this that man finds his peace, and from there becomes an instrument of peace".

"Religious freedom does not imply that all religions are equal. Nor is it a reason for religious relativism or indifferentism. Religious freedom is compatible with defence of one's religious identity against relativism, syncretism and fundamentalism, which are all abused forms of religious freedom".

After then highlighting how "religious freedom is not limited to the free exercise of worship", the cardinal pointed out that "there is a public dimension to it, which grants believers the chance of making their contribution to building the social order".

"Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truth of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development", he said.

"The exercise of the right of religious freedom as a way to peace thus implies the recognition of the harmony that must exist between the two areas and forms of life: private and public, individual and community, person and society. ... Accordingly, the development and the exercise of one's religious freedom, is also the task of one's community".

Referring then to the relationship between religious freedom and the State, Cardinal Turkson affirmed that, "although religious freedom is not established by the State, it (the State) nevertheless needs to recognise it as intrinsic to the human person and his public and communitarian expressions. Recognition of religious freedom and respect for the innate dignity of every person also imply the principle of the responsibility to protect on the part of the community, society and the State".

"The Church's appeals for religious freedom are not based on a claim of reciprocity, whereby one group respects the rights of others only if the latter respect their rights. Rather, appeals for religious freedom are based on the dignity of persons. We respect the rights of others because it is the right thing to do, not in exchange for its equivalent or for a favour granted. At the same time, when others suffer persecution because of their faith and religious practice, we offer them compassion and solidarity".

Cardinal Turkson concluded his observations by noting that "all proclamation of the Gospel ... is an effort to awaken the (religious) freedom of man to desire and to embrace the truth of the Gospel. This truth of the Gospel, however, is unique, because it is truth that saves. ... Evangelisation and the carrying out of the missionary charge, then, do not contradict and oppose the sense of religious freedom".

For his part, Bishop Toso affirmed that Benedict XVI's Message "invites us particularly to examine the truth of the right to religious freedom; in other words, its anthropological, ethical, juridical, political, civil and religious implications. ... Over and above mere tolerance, religious freedom is the marrow bone of all morality and freedom, of reciprocal respect, of peace".

"The Message reserves the same criticism for fanaticism, fundamentalism and laicism, because they all overlook the essence of religious freedom, which is the free and common search for transcendent truth".

"For the Church", the bishop concluded, "dialogue between followers of different religions is an important stimulus to collaborate with all religious communities for the promotion of peace. In this way - in a globalised world characterised by increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-confessional societies - the great religions can represent not a problem but a resource, an important factor of unity and harmony".

To read the text of the Holy Father's Message click here.
AC/ VIS 20101216 (1070)

2. "Irish abortion ban violates womens' rights: European Court of Human Rights"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/irish-abortion-ban-violates-womens-rights-european-court-of-human-rights/story-fn3dxity-1225972470404
http://www.smh.com.au/world/europe-rules-against-irish-abortion-law-20101217-18zsw.html?skin=text-only

3. Mr. Ackland on child sexual assault and child pornography in Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/getting-away-with-child-abuse-20101216-18zik.html?skin=text-only

4. "JOIN THE SSPX.ORG UPDATES LIST"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35145

5. Mr. Haddad on the consequences of the recent changes to the CathNews comments policy

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=24542
(first comment there)

6. "Terra" on the A.C.B.C.'s preoccupation with refugees

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/12/bishops-are-very-worried-about.html

7. Mr. Muehlenberg on what a family is

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2004/11/20/so-what-is-a-family/
(brought to my attention by one of Mr. Muehlenberg's comments here)

8. Mr. Skinner with a possible reason why most heterosexuals don't kick up a stink about the advance of 'gay rights'

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/12/14/defending-marriage-now-means-being-%e2%80%98hateful%e2%80%99/
(comment of 16.12.10 / 8pm)

Reginaldvs Cantvar

17.XII.2010

Notes: Friday, November 19, 2010

1. Latest on so-called gay marriage in Australia

There's so much that I'll mainly just post links:

Articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/early-conference-to-end-forced-consensus-20101118-17zf2.html?skin=text-only
('Gay-marriage'-related motion passed the Federal Lower House 73-72--quite an achievement, given how difficult it tends to be for catamites to pass motions.)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conscience-vote-pms-best-option-20101118-17z7m.html?skin=text-only
("According to an Essential Research poll out this week, ... 53 per cent said people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. This included 57 per cent of Labor voters. Coalition supporters were equally divided (45 per cent each way); Greens overwhelmingly in favour (80 per cent).")
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/same-sex-unions-not-a-vote-changer/story-e6frg6nf-1225955971708
("Labor strategists dismissed suggestions the issue would damage the party's support among blue-collar workers, saying it was not a vote-changer. Citing the lack of reaction to recent NSW legislation allowing gay couples to adopt, a senior Labor source said: "People may not support it, but it will not be a vote-changer. And a lot of people in the front bar would say fair enough to gay marriage."")
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/its-the-vibe-is-not-a-valid-argument-against-gay-rights/
("Around 25% of lesbian couples in Australia are currently raising children and many more are now planning families together." No source is provided for that figure, however.

One other thing about that last article: Dr. Phelps writes that

Over 60% of Australians support marriage equality. Not some watered-down euphemism like “civil union”, but marriage equality.

I've been thinking that isn't the fact that a marriage involves an husband and a wife, whereas a 'gay marriage' obviously can't, a good enough reason for dismissing the pro-'gay-marriage' insistence on marriage rather than a mere 'civil union' (not that I support 'civil unions', however--I can't see how a 'union' founded on sodomy can be regarded as 'civil')? They don't insist on calling one 'spouse' an husband and the other a wife, so why do they insist on calling their relationship a marriage?)

Editorials:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/allow-a-free-vote-on-gay-marriage-20101118-17z7d.html?skin=text-only
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-get-hung-up-on-the-politics-of-same-sex-union/story-e6frg71x-1225955924810

Letters:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/lineage-has-no-relevance-other-than-to-snobs-20101118-17z7b.html?skin=text-only
(The first letter at the following web-page has apparently had its first sentence cut off; that sentence, judging by the main Letters page, is "WHAT a gutless position the Prime Minister has taken on same-sex marriage.")
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillard-fails-test-of-leadership-on-gay-marriage/story-fn558imw-1225955928584

2. "White Britons a minority by '66"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3234028/Oxford-professor-issues-shock-population-warning-for-Great-Britain-by-2066.html#ixzz15bAcxfjK
(Brought to my attention by this AQ thread.)

3. "Terra" on, among other things, the activities, or lack thereof, of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/11/bishops-jump-to-right-and-blogosphere.html

4. "Maurice Pinay" on, among other things, the 'Noahide' movement

The following web-page contains many useful links:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/11/remnants-conspicuous-blind-spot.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Widow, and of St. Pontianus, Pope, Martyr, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, September 30, 2010

An interesting fact about the application of the Statute of Westminster to Australia

Second paragraph of this letter in today's Herald:

It took a while …

Lewis Hewertson (Letters, September 29) fails to see how Australians could be compelled to fight ''for England'', since Australia received self-governance in 1901. This overlooks the fact that Australia's foreign policy (and that of Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) was controlled and directed by London by law.

The Statute of Westminster of 1931 awarded full independence to the British dominions, including in foreign policy, but the Australian government of the day did not ratify it.

Robert Menzies, declaring war on Germany in 1939, stated that Australia was at war because Britain was, ipso facto. The statute was only ratified by the Curtin government in 1942, marking the point where British and Australian interests diverged.

Hugh Sturgess Balmain
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/we-dont-need-an-englishman-lording-it-over-us-20100929-15x9q.html?skin=text-only]

Some figures on the prospects for children from broken homes

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/broken-homes-can-disadvantage-kids-for-life-study-finds/story-e6frg6nf-1225932001780

The latest developments regarding so-called gay marriage ...

1. "Bandt attacks [The Australian]'s coverage of [The Greens' "legislative timetable"]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bandt-attacks-newspapers-coverage/story-fn59niix-1225931993399

See also the editorial and the "Cut & Paste" section of today's edition of The Australian.

2. From the first link in item 1:

Yesterday, on the first full day of the new parliament, the Greens reintroduced a bill into the Senate legalising gay marriage.

3. "Gillard says no conscience vote on gay marriage"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/29/3024870.htm

4. "Tasmania to recognise same-sex marriage"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/29/3025417.htm?section=justin

Second paragraph of that news item:

An amendment to Tasmania's Relationship Act was passed unopposed in the state's Upper House, meaning marriages performed in countries where it's legal will now be recognised in Tasmania.

(Thanks to Terra for highlighting those last two news stories, which I didn't see covered at http://www.smh.com.au/text or http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ today.)

... and euthanasia

"Church responds to renewed euthanasia efforts"
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23507

First paragraph of the body of the CathNews item:

Catholic Health Australia is co-ordinating a national response to the renewed nationwide promotion of euthanasia, while the country's bishops have re-issued a submission previously made on the rights of the terminally ill.

Mr. Brent on the history, merits, and demerits of compulsory voting and compulsory voting enrolment

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/lets_make_voting_voluntary/

"Joshua" on "The Legend of the Leonine Prayers"

http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/09/legend-of-leonine-prayers.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2010

On an A.C.B.C. initiative to improve doctrinal literacy

http://www.acbc.catholic.org.au/bishops/pm/200812091370.htm

I read an interesting little item in yesterday’s Sydney Catholic Weekly which is also available in much the same form at the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference (A.C.B.C.) website. Here it is:

Accessible new pamphlets on Catholic doctrine to be issued next year

The Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals is preparing to publish a series of easy-to-read pamphlets on key areas of doctrine.

It is proposed that six pamphlets will be prepared by the members of the Commission, Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop Mark Coleridge, Bishop Christopher Prowse, Bishop Anthony Fisher. Bishop Peter Elliott will also prepare one of the pamphlets.

They will be released to coincide with the feasts of Easter, Pentecost, the Assumption, Exaltation of the Cross, Christ the King and Christmas.

The pamphlets will examine the subjects of Christology, Truth in the Church, Christian understanding of the Body, Moral Truths, Eschatology and Salvation.

The Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals has also commissioned Dr Anne Hunt to develop a booklet on the Trinity. The booklet is directed to a general audience, including secondary students. It is expected that the booklet will be ready for publication during 2009.

Now this is a welcome initiative, and clearly a timely one given the recent ravings of a certain Australian priest (not to mention the nonsense that one can find any day of the week at websites like Mr. Coyne’s little project). And it is good to see that the prelates leading this initiative are ones who are regarded as orthodox. The thing is, they are orthodox, but none of them is Traditional, and so while I’m confident that most of the pamphlets will be doctrinally sound, I worry about what to expect from the pamphlet for the Feast of Christ the King. I blogged recently on His Eminence Cardinal Pell’s recent inadequate attempt to explain Christ’s Kingship, and unfortunately it appears that Msgr. Elliott conforms to the truncated ‘in men’s hearts’ (and therefore not truly and properly social) view of the Social Reign of Christ:

But, if I emphasise the social reign of the Lord Jesus, I need to place this in the spiritual or, let us say, the supernatural perspective. It is a simple call to faith: 'Let Jesus reign!'

Let him reign in our hearts, families, houses and apartments, schools and universities, workplaces, farms, factories, shops and offices. Let him reign among our circle of friends and family as we witness and strive to establish on earth the Kingdom of truth, life, holiness, grace, justice, love and peace.
(http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/feb2008p12_2723.html)

Let Him Reign “in our hearts, families, houses and apartments, schools and universities, workplaces, farms, factories, shops and offices” by all means, but what of His Reign over the State, which is society taken at its highest natural level? Nowhere in His Lordship’s article does he affirm that Christ’s Reign must be acknowledged by the State and that it must, in justice, do Him homage. This is particularly odd given that His Lordship began this article lamenting the ‘spiritualisation’ of Christ’s Reign.

So what can we do to avert any diminution of Christ’s Social Kingship and take advantage of this opportunity to promote His Reign? I am considering writing (under my real name, of course) an e-mail to the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Sr. Elizabeth M. Delany S.G.S., with the following sentiments:

J.M.J.
[Date]
Sr. Elizabeth M. Delaney, S.G.S.
Executive Secretary,
Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals
church.life@catholic.org.au

My Venerable and Dear Sister in Christ,

I was pleased to read in the Sydney Catholic Weekly of December 21, 2008 that the Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals, of which you are Executive Secretary, is going to issue several pamphlets dealing with some fundamental Catholic teachings. I write to you regarding the pamphlet to be issued for the Feast of Christ the King. I am concerned that the pamphlet might fail to uphold explicitly the dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ, and that Christ’s Social Reign might be reduced to a mere reign ‘in men’s hearts’ taken individually, which would, therefore, not be truly and properly social. I would like to express my hope that in any pamphlet treating Christ’s Kingship there will be an affirmation that Christ’s Social Reign is not just a matter of people in a society acknowledging Christ’s Kingship, but that it demands that people as a society acknowledge Christ’s Kingship, with the implication necessarily being that the State, which is society taken at its highest natural level, must acknowledge Christ as its King and as the Source of the blessings that it enjoys, of its authority and of its very existence. His late Holiness Pius XI wrote about this in his Encyclical Quas Primas:

18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."[28] Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ. In him is the salvation of the individual, in him is the salvation of society. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved."[29] He is the author of happiness and true prosperity for every man and for every nation. "For a nation is happy when its citizens are happy. What else is a nation but a number of men living in concord?"[30] If, therefore, the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ. …
[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_11121925_quas-primas_en.html]

I look forward to hearing more about this welcome initiative to improve doctrinal literacy and, in particular, I hope to see a strong affirmation of the dogma of the Social Kingship of Christ. I would be interested to hear back from you with any information regarding the Commission’s intentions in this connection.

Yours faithfully in Christ,
[Name]
[Address]

So what do you think? Do you think that I have expressed myself diplomatically enough here (I want to maximise the likelihood of an endorsement of the Traditional teaching on Christ’s Kingship, so I want to avoid anything harsh or polemical)? Would you be interested in supporting my little initiative by sending an e-mail of your own to Sr. Elizabeth, using the words provided here, or a composition of your own? Would a written letter enjoy a better reception than an e-mail, do you think? Let me know in the combox if you have any suggestions for making my attempt to promote Christ’s Social Reign succeed.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
22.XII.2008 A.D.

On ‘social justice’

http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/

The Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference 2008 Social Justice Statement A Rich Young Nation: The challenge of poverty and affluence in Australia is out now. I have read it and I’m afraid I was not impressed. It seems to me that the big problem with this, like much in post-Conciliar thought on ‘social justice’, is that the term ‘social justice’ appears to confuse the cardinal virtue of justice with the theological virtue of charity, or even to conflate the two. Now I know that there is a close, harmonious relationship between all the virtues and that, if I recall correctly, St. Thomas described charity as the mother, mover, form and root of all the virtues. But nonetheless, justice is, though not separate from charity, still distinct from it. To put it simply, justice is about giving to someone what he is owed, whereas charity is giving to someone of what is one’s own. This appears to have eluded my Lords the Bishops despite the fact that they quote H.H. The Pope saying, in the Chairman’s message, that “The Church cannot neglect the service of charity any more than she can neglect the Sacraments and the Word.” The Bishops quote St. Basil the Great saying that “the acts of charity you do not perform are so many injustices that you commit” yet I wonder whether ‘injustices’ was the best translation; perhaps ‘wrongs’ would have been more apt.

Another problem in the document is the concepts of affluence and poverty that it uses. The document quotes Prof. Clive Hamilton on the problem of ‘affluenza’ saying that

When people see wants as needs, it is not surprisingthat two thirds (in a Newspoll survey) say they cannot afford everything they need. And their feelings of deprivation are real, since thwarted desire is transformed into a sense of deprivation.

Similarly, the characteristics that the Bishops assign to the condition of poverty are heavily based on ‘feelings’ and evade the distinction between absolute and relative poverty. Yet if poverty is sentimental and relative then those suffering from ‘affluenza’ can be considered legitimately ‘poor’!

I would be interested to hear readers’ opinions on the matter.

Reginaldvs Cantvar