Notes: Friday, November 5, 2010

1. The latest figures on fertility in Australia

From a short article, entitled "Too poor for kids", on page nine of yesterday's edition of the Sydney Daily Telegraph (the following excerpt is my transcript):

The nation's fertility rate dropped in 2009 to 1.9 babies per reproductive woman.
This figure was down from 1.96 in 2008 as all states and territories except Queensland saw a fall in birth rates.

Here are some extracts from an Australian Bureau of Statistics media release of November 3 entitled "Fertility rates decline in 2009":

After increasing in recent years, fertility rates in Australia declined slightly in 2009, according to figures released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

In 2009, Australia's total fertility rate was 1.90 babies per woman, a small decrease from 1.96 babies per woman in 2008 and 1.92 babies per woman in 2007.

Fertility rates for all states and territories decreased in 2009, except for Queensland.

Tasmania had the highest fertility rate, with 2.18 babies per woman, while the Australian Capital Territory had the lowest at 1.74.

Women in Tasmania were also having their children at younger ages than women in the rest of Australia; with fertility rates highest for women aged 25-29 years. For the rest of Australia, fertility rates were highest for women aged 30-34 years.

The median age of all mothers for births registered in 2009 was 30.6 years, while the median age of fathers was 33.0 years, both slightly younger than in recent years.

A total of 295,700 births were registered in Australia in 2009. ...

[...] Media notes:

• The total fertility rate represents the average number of babies that a woman could expect to bear during her reproductive lifetime if current fertility rates continue.

[http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyCatalogue/374A7412FAA14CBBCA2574EF007A1DEF?Opendocument]

2. "Eugenics 'rises from Nazi tomb' claims Victorian Bishop Peter Elliott"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/eugenics-rises-from-nazi-tomb-claims-victorian-bishop-peter-elliott/story-e6frg6nf-1225948024158

I would be interested to read more of the transcript of His Lordship's sermon (I presume it was a sermon?), but a Google search of the keywords "Peter Elliott" and "eugenics" and "Nazi tomb" just came up with the same article from The Australian.

3. "Midterm Elections a Big Win for Zionist War-mongers"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34541

Reginaldvs Cantvar

5.XI.2010

Priests from the S.S.P.X. and The Diocese of Sale pray the Holy Rosary together

Here's a link to an interesting item at AQ:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29093

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bibiana, Virgin, Martyr, A.D. 2009

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.

Msgr. Elliott and Fr. Flader on Purgatory

[Update: November 10, 2008: the two articles are now available on-line:

Msgr. Elliott's:

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/nov2008p20_2940.html

Fr. Flader's:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=5018&class=Features&subclass=Question%20Time]

The Most Rev. Msgr. Peter J. Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, and Rev. Fr. John Flader have both just had articles published on Purgatory, the former in this month’s AD2000 and the latter in last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly. I was not particularly impressed with either of them, since both failed to set Purgatory in the context of God’s Justice; indeed, neither Msgr. Elliott nor Fr. Flader used the word “justice” even once. Instead, both clergymen emphasised purgatory as an expression of Divine Mercy rather than of Divine Justice; Msgr. Elliott wrote that “[y]et even as there is a painful dimension to purification, Purgatory is best understood as the Divine Mercy beyond death”, and that the “fire of purgation is not so much punishment, rather a way of receiving the saving work of Christ, in atonement for the debt set up by the echoing effects of our many sins”, and Fr. Flader wrote that “we should never forget that God, in his infinite mercy, demands much less punishment than our sins deserve. If it were not for his mercy, we would never get out of Purgatory!”

These opinions notwithstanding, Purgatory is a matter primarily of satisfying Divine Justice; usually one thinks of the Divine Mercy as being applied by the gratuitous reduction of the temporal punishment through the granting of an indulgence rather than the soul’s undergoing of that punishment. It is not clear to me that, as Fr. Flader asserts, “[i]f it were not for [God’s] mercy, we would never get out of Purgatory!”, since if one is in Purgatory then one has, presumably, merited eternal life but just has a debt to pay in justice before he can receive his reward; thus it is, as it were, only a matter of time before one gets out of Purgatory. Nor is it clear to me that, as Fr. Flader says, “we should never forget that God, in his infinite mercy, demands much less punishment than our sins deserve”, since one does indeed receive the due punishment, unless favoured with an indulgence. Given that they repented of their sins during their earthly lives and thus avoided the eternal punishment, they owe nonetheless no more and no less than the temporal punishment due to them for their sins.

Furthermore, I found Fr. Flader‘s explanation of the manner in which suffering in Purgatory might be reduced through the Communion of Saints to be inadequate. Father writes that

Just as God, in his power and mercy, answers our prayers for others here on earth by shortening their sufferings, curing their diseases more quickly, healing broken relationships, etc., so he can answer our prayers for the souls in Purgatory by shortening their sufferings.

But it is by suffering vicariously on someone else’s behalf that the suffering of the other one is shortened, not (usually) by a simple reduction in the total amount of suffering owed; someone still has to pay the debt of sin. But this is not altogether clear from what Fr. Flader writes.

It is unfortunate that, in an age in which there is widespread confusion about the meaning of justice, Msgr. Elliott and Fr. Flader did not take this opportunity to make explicit the implications of Divine Justice for this life and the next. And if clergymen fail to emphasise the punitive aspect of Purgatory and ignore Divine Justice, then belief in Hell as one of the Last Things can only weaken, since Hell, with Heaven, signifies the very triumph of justice. Temporal punishment reduces with time but, as Prof. Romano Amerio says in Iota Unum, no amount of time can remove the difference between right and wrong, hence the necessity of eternal punishment.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, Bishop, Confessor, 2008 A.D.