Notes: Wednesday, February 9, 2011

1. More on so-called gay marriage

1.1 "[Malcolm] Turnbull seeks views on gay marriage"

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/turnbull-seeks-views-on-gay-marriage-20110208-1alqa.html?skin=text-only

Labels: G.L.B.T., Malcolm Turnbull, marriage, morality

1.2 "Union revolt on same-sex marriage ban"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/union-revolt-on-same-sex-marriage-ban/story-fn59niix-1226002429479

Labels: G.L.B.T., marriage, morality, S.D.A.

2. "[Russian Orthodox] Archbishop Hilarion on Christian Unity"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35951

I was interested to read there that the prelate in question

believe[s that] we the Orthodox are ourselves not altogether clear about what we mean by primacy and how this primacy should be exercised. We have, for example, certain differences between the primacy as it is understood by the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the primacy as it is understood by the Patriarchate of Moscow.

See also the first comment in that AQ thread for information on relations between the Russian State and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Labels: Hilarion Alfeyev, Kirill of Moscow, Papacy, R.O.C., Russia

3. Dr. Oddie on Catholic-Anglican 'ecumenical' discussions

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35950
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/02/why-does-the-old-fashioned-style-of-catholic-anglican-dialogue-continue/

Excerpt:

... A document so general that they can all subscribe to it will somehow be cobbled together. Nobody will read it: and the whole operation will at great expense achieve nothing.

Can anybody explain to me why we carry on with ARCIC? Is there any real intention, as 30 years ago there undoubtedly was, of actually acheiving something? Is it a continuing self-delusion on the part of those participating? Or is ARCIC III just a PR exercise, designed to avert attention from the fact that we have now, inevitably but finally, come to the bitter end of the ecumenical road?

Labels: Anglicans, ecumenism

4. "St. Thomas Aquinas on Admonishing Prelates"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35938

Labels: Hierarchy, morality, St. Thomas Aquinas, theology

5. (For laughs) And what about their Gender Studies credentials?

I was amused to read the following question, submitted, apparently seriously, in the comments section at the CathNews post entitled "New missal translation 'archaic': Irish priests' group"

Is there any evidence that anyone on the final committee of the new translation had/has any qualification in anthropology or the sociology of language?

Posted By: Anne , Redlands
[bold type in the original,
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=24975]

Labels: humour, New Mass

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, and of St. Apollonia, Virgin, Martyr, A.D. 2011

Notes: Friday, May 21, 2010

A nice response to yesterday's Herald letter on stealing

Brand of faith

With all due respect to Donald Howard, if I wanted an unbiased analysis of Catholic theology, Moore College is the last place I would go (Letters, May 20).

Stephen Magee Epping
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/little-people-suffer-when-twiggy-acts-like-a-log-20100520-vnv5.html?skin=text-only]

Upcoming Compass episode on the Australian experience of Vatican II and its aftermath

From Yesterday's CathNews:

This episode of Compass explores the Catholic Church in Australia during one of the most dynamic periods in its recent history, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). Vatican II challenged elements of Catholicism unquestioned since the 16th century. Pope John XXIII wanted to bring the church 'up to date' in a dynamic and fast changing world.

Almost 50 years later this film explores how Vatican II changed Catholic practice, identity and faith through the personal stories of eminent and ordinary Australians.

It also examines how the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are faring today in a time of rising conservatism in the church.

Challenge, Change, Faith: Catholic Australia and the Second Vatican Council - Compass, 10.05pm ABC- TV1, May 23

[http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21404]

Russian Orthodox prelate on relations between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361642&sid=416531fe6b2dd8306e12130cbc1910ac

Archbishop Hilarion [Alfeyev of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate] went on to note that in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church "the awareness has grown of not being in competition, but of being allies." The rivalries of the past, he added, "must stay there, in the past."

He noted that cultural changes, particularly the "de-Christianization of our countries," is calling for "greater collaboration."

Other cultural changes call increasingly for an open dialogue between Catholics and Orthodox, the prelate said: "Today there are many mixed marriages. We often find an Orthodox person next to a Catholic."

[...] Archbishop Hilarion affirmed that for many Orthodox, "the election of Benedict XVI was received positively," especially because of "his position on moral questions."

"There is a commitment [among the Orthodox] to observe and promote traditional values," he said.

In regard to the theological dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics, the archbishop projected that it will last for many years.

"Each stage of the dialogue ends with a text where Catholics and Orthodox say something together," he explained. "What is important is that these texts are received not only by theologians but also by the faithful."

From another report on the same web-page:

"I think the atmospere of dialogue has improved and without a doubt relations improve along with the theological dialogue. But I think the theological dialogue still has a long way to go," [Metropolitian Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Moscow Patriarchate's office for external relations] said.

[... Regarding the prospects for a meeting between the respective heads of the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church:] "An encounter between a pope and a patriarch should be a historic event, not just because it is the first meeting between the head of the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church but especially because such a meeting must be sign of the intention to move our relations forward, which is why is must be prepared for well," he said.

"I hope there could be an encounter not between just any pope of Rome and patriarch of Moscow, but between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Benedict XVI," Metropolitan Hilarion said.

Pressed on the question, he said, "By mentioning these two concrete people, I tried to indicate somewhat a desired deadline."

He told reporters that most of the Russian Orthodox clergy and faithful have a very favorable opinion of Pope Benedict and particularly appreciate his efforts to promote traditional moral values and to strengthen the Christian culture of Europe.

Blog comments from me:

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:07 am

Thanks, Peregrinus. (Also, you might be interested to read the comment I’m about to post at the bottom of the main thread, on the origin of the symbol.)
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/a-man-of-devastating-sanity-professor-claudio-veliz-on-cardinal-george-pell/#comment-14837]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:16 am

I wonder how the convention of prelates using the plus sign originated? I seem to recall reading somewhere some time ago that Bishops used to write ‘sinner’ before their respective names when signing something, and this evolved into the plus sign, which, as Peregrinus rightly noted, represents a cross. But if, as I think, it is for Ordinaries only, not just anyone consecrated Bishop, perhaps it’s meant to signify the heavy burden–the cross–of exercising Ordinary jurisdiction? The care of a single soul, let alone the souls of thousands, is a weighty enough responsibility, and they say that Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/a-man-of-devastating-sanity-professor-claudio-veliz-on-cardinal-george-pell/#comment-14838]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:37 am

“what is the Catholic view on the priesthood of believers,given that St Paul clearly talks about it?”

For what it’s worth (I’m no expert either!):

Any priesthood is the power to offer sacrifice. As a living member of the Body of Christ, the Christian has the power–and is required–to offer up spiritual sacrifices ‘on the altar of his heart’, as they say. By offering up good works, performed from a motive of Faith while in the state of grace, the Christian merits increase of grace and glory and makes satisfaction for his sins and the sins of others. This is the priesthood of all believers.

The ministerial priesthood, on the other hand, is the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which (Sacrifice) is a true, propitiatory sacrifice, one and the same as that offered on Mt. Calvary, differing only in the manner of offering (unbloody rather than bloody), by which the Sacrifice of Calvary is renewed and represented and its fruits received.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/rare-but-allowable-former-baptist-pastor-becomes-catholic-priest/#comment-14839]

Cardinal Pole
May 21, 2010 at 4:58 am

Is that “masters and magistrates” as in civic officers, or as in ecclesiastical officers (‘pastors and doctors’)? (From the contrast to following “individual intuition and authority” I expect the latter, but I might be mistaken.)
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/on-heretics/#comment-14840]

Two blog comments by others which I wish to save for future reference:

From Mr. Schütz's blog:

Schütz
May 20, 2010 at 2:22 pm

The difference between Calvinists/Lutherans and the Anabaptists is often described (and well) as the difference between a “magisterial” reformation and a “radical” reformation. “Magisterial” in this sense means that they followed the authority of the “masters and magistrates”, rather than individual intuition and authority.

Mark Henderson
May 20, 2010 at 10:10 pm

Yes, quite a valid and helpful distinction, David. Lutherans and Reformed also gained official toleration from the Holy Roman Empire, which the Anabaptists didn’t ever do, to my knowledge. By the way, I note that the Anabaptist presence in Australia has been growing over the last two decades; they now have their own association with a website (I mean true Anabaptist groups like the Mennonites, not just run-of-the-mill Baptists).
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/05/19/on-heretics/#comments]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
21.V.2010

More evidence that sodomy is harmful to one’s sense of humour

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24804194-5001021,00.html

I’m not sure whether to label this one with a ‘humour’ tag or a ‘human rights’ tag; whatever it is, it’s a scream. I’ll post the whole article with no additional comment except to suggest that you might care to read this in the context of the latest thrust for an Australian bill of rights:

Gay activist told: Get a sense of humour over Telstra ad [I liked the original print edition headline more: “Lighten up, it’s only two blokes in a tent”.]

EXCLUSIVE by Joe Hildebrand
December 16, 2008 12:00am

A GAY activist says his human rights have been violated by the human rights watchdog itself - because it refused to ban a "homophobic" Telstra ad about two men in a tent.

Glebe-based advocate Andrew James has now lodged an official complaint, prompting a call from Human Rights Commissioner Graeme Innes for people to lighten up.

In the ad, two men on a camping trip become suspicious when their two mates disappear into a tent. It later emerges they are simply watching cricket on the same mobile phone.

"Gay men who do choose to have sex in a tent should not have to be afraid of getting caught by their friends," Mr James' writes on his website, engayment.org.

He complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission about the ad but found there was no official category because it did not occur in the workplace.

Instead, he complained under the category "My human rights have been breached by a federal government agency" . . . namely the commission itself. In his formal complaint, he wrote: "You're the one place that should stand up for my rights and my equality, and your own website is discriminatory in nature."

AHRC complaint handling director Karen Toohey said there was no legal basis to act against the ad.

Mr Innes, meanwhile, suggested people needed to have a sense of humour about such things.

"It's important not to vilify or treat people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation," he said. "However, that's got to be taken in the context of the Australian sense of humour and sense of fun."

The reporter, Mr. Hildebrand, also had funny opinion piece on this silly story. It had me laughing out loud:

Human rights violations just not cricket

RARELY a day goes by when I don't have my human rights violated. In fact I had them violated just yesterday and if they're not violated again by lunchtime I will have to hire someone.

So naturally I was not surprised to read that a Sydney gay activist had his human rights violated by the Human Rights Commission. After all, they would know how to do the job, wouldn't they?

(Another reason I was not surprised to read the article was that I had written it the
previous day but let's not get mired in detail.)

Andrew James said the commission had discriminated against him by not allowing him to be discriminated against.

In particular James wanted to be discriminated against by a Telstra ad about two men watching cricket in a tent while their camping buddies suspect they are climbing Brokeback Mountain.

But the commission's complaints director Karen Toohey told him that even though he thought the ad was homophobic there was no legal basis for discrimination. Andrew James could not be discriminated against.

This of course is in itself discriminatory. Not only that it is homophobic and, one can only presume, racist.

Toohey suggested in a highly discriminatory way that James take his concerns about the ad to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, who naturally told him it was a matter more suited to the Human Rights Commission. Yet again, a government agency had prevented him from being discriminated against by the Telstra commercial - which, incidentally, features a man with a moustache.

Adding insult to injury, the ACMA was likewise unable to help James with the fact that his human rights had been violated by the Human Rights Commission.

This meant, by my calculations, that he had been violated three times in one day.

Of course James is not alone in this. Recently pansexual lobbyists claimed they were being discriminated against by the lack of a fourth official gender - defined as "other" - on top of the traditional male, female and intersex.

And of course John Laws was taken to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for calling Carson Kressley a pillow-biter*, an outrageous comment given that the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy host is flagrantly heterosexual.

What a great relief it is that so many selfless citizens are keeping our bureaucrats employed in these challenging economic times.

* Every time I hear this term I am reminded of the great surrealist joke: "Last night I dreamt I was eating my pillow and when I woke up my giant white marshmallow was gone".
(http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24803679-5001030,00.html)

Reginaldvs Cantvar
17.XII.2008 A.D.

Mr. Mullen and the secular sense of humour

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24458834-5001028,00.html

I was pleased to see London Anglican clergymen Mr. Peter Mullen in a little article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, though not in the most favourable of circumstances. It is reported that he made a light-hearted comment at a blog, saying that

“Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH”

But in a reminder of what a sour bunch the secularists (or in this case, the Anglican crypto-secularists) can be, his ecclesial circumscription said that it found the comment

"highly offensive" and [the comment] did not reflect its views.

It is well-known that the Sodomites’ League cannot stand it being pointed out to them that sodomy is one of the most damaging practices in which one could ever consent to engage, even from a purely medical perspective. Mr. Muehlenberg wrote a perceptive piece some time ago in which he reported on the shift in public discourse on homosexuality from a focus on homosexual behaviour to a focus on homosexual identity/culture/life-style. This shift serves to distract us from the fact that the so-called ‘gay culture’ is founded on one of the most unhealthy activities around. Yet even the publicly-funded, untaxed GAYCON knows how damaging sodomy can be; presumably that is why they find it necessary to provide young homosexual men with “a workshop on sex and sexual techniques” (rather than, say, recommended that the same confused young men undergo counseling first). It is for the deleterious effects on health of sodomy, if for no other reason, that sodomy should be outlawed. And the Sodomites’ League could hardly complain of ‘discrimination’, since it would be imposed regardless of whether sodomite or catamite were homosexual or heterosexual.

I had a recent experience of the selective secular sense of humour at MgS’s blog. She reported on Ms Margaret Atwood writing that Canada was basically sliding towards dictatorship, based on Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Stephen Harper’s treatment of the arts community. I joked that

Wow, so Mr. Harper has despatched squads of goons to shut down all dissenting artists?

Oh, wait, he's just cut funding to overseas-based artists. False alarm.

But MgS responded with icy fury:

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about here.

It’s one thing to get a joke but not find it funny, but quite another not even to get the joke at all. Yet this same woman had spoken on another occasion of Baptism in the most light-hearted terms. Isn’t it interesting how secularists like MgS will freely belittle the Christian Sacraments, the very channels of Grace, but if one tries so much as to view their own pre-occupations in a humourous light their jocularity vanishes altogether? This is all the more lame since Ms Atwood and Mr. Harper differ not in kind, but only in degree—they both stand for basically the same political system, so why let oneself become so worked up about it?

But back to Mr. Mullen. He had an excellent article, carried in AD2000 some time ago, in which he lamented the decay of the Anglicans from a “once refined and educated, lovely and lovable national institution” to a body marked by “a mania for self-destruction”. One might hope that this latest episode will be the final nail in the coffin for his allegiance to the Anglican heresy and schism. Let him abjure his heresy, let him cast off the yoke of his anti-Christic ‘Supreme Governor’, let him abandon the notion that the British Parliament may add or subtract articles of faith, let him sever his connections with those who, with official approval, deny the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration. In a word, let him come home to Rome.

Reginaldvs Cantvar