Notes: Friday, August 1-Wednesday, December 31, 2014 (part 2 of 2)

9. H.H. The Pope on, among other things, the death penalty

See the Speech to the delegates of the International Association of Penal Law, October 23, 2014, available at the "October 2014 Speeches" page at the Vatican's website:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/index.html

Labels: death penalty, Francis Bergoglio, justice

10. Dr. Brown on the content and structure of the New Order of Mass compared to that of the Traditional Latin Mass

See his comment of 1 November 2014 at 11:01 pm at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog post "GERMANY: Where the weird stuff comes from" of November 1, 2014 at Fr. Z's Blog:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/11/why-is-it-that-truly-weird-stuff-comes-into-the-church-from-germany/#comment-483619

Labels: N.O.M., theology, T.L.M.

11. Dr. Summers on, among other things, H.M.A. Government's continuing overseas Feminist propaganda

See the opinion piece "Forget the F-word, action is what counts", by Dr. Anne Summers A.O., dated November 15, 2014, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/forget-the-fword-action-is-what-counts-20141113-11m2g5.html?skin=text-only

(That article came to my attention via the version printed on p. 38 in the "COMMENT" pages of the "NEWS REVIEW" section of The Sydney Morning Herald, weekend edition, November 15-16, 2014, Issue No. 55256, ISSN 0312-6315, published by Fairfax Media Publications Pty. Ltd.)

Labels: feminism

12. Ms Wilkinson on, among other things, "the growing body of “guilty until proven innocent” laws being made" in Australia

See the opinion piece "Politicians should be considered guilty until proven innocent too", by Cassandra Wilkinson, dated November 8, 2014, downloaded from (behind the paywall at) The Australian's website:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/politicians-should-be-considered-guilty-until-proven-innocent-too/story-fnhuliiz-1227116002659

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline (though all the letters were in capitals), with the same author, on p. 22 in the "INQUIRER" section of The Weekend Australian, November 8-9, 2014, Second Edition, No. 15570, ISSN 1038-8761, published by Nationwide News Pty. Limited.)

Labels: burden of proof, law

13. Some recent articles regarding the State of Israel's proposed 'nation-state of the Jewish people' bill

See

• the article "Israelis fear a gathering intifada: ugly mood stalks neighbourhoods of Jerusalem", by John Lyons, dated November 8, 2014, downloaded from The Australian's website:
  
  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/israelis-fear-a-gathering-intifada-ugly-mood-stalks-neighbourhoods-of-jerusalem/story-e6frg6so-1227116392046
  
  (That article came to my attention via the version printed under the headline "Israelis fear a gathering intifada", with the same author, on p. 11 in the "WORLD" section of The Weekend Australian, November 8-9, 2014, Second Edition, No. 15570, ISSN 1038-8761, published by Nationwide News Pty. Limited.)

• the article "Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet backs 'Jewish state law' as tensions run high in Israel", by Isabel Kershner, dated November 24, 2014, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/world/benjamin-netanyahus-cabinet-backs-jewish-state-law-as-tensions-run-high-in-israel-20141124-11sdlx.html?skin=text-only

• the article "Two Arab suspects arrested in fresh Jerusalem knife attack", by Jodi Rudoren, dated November 25, 2014, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/world/two-arab-suspects-arrested-in-fresh-jerusalem-knife-attack-20141125-11t2z7.html?skin=text-only

• the article "Benjamin Netanyahu seeks early election, fires top ministers", by Jeffrey Heller, dated November 3, 2014, :
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/world/benjamin-netanyahu-seeks-early-election-fires-top-ministers-20141203-11ytvo.html?skin=text-only

• the article "Israel's nationality bill fuels debate over religious and democratic identity", by Jodi Rudoren, dated December 9, 2014, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website::
  
  http://www.smh.com.au/world/israels-nationality-bill-fuels-debate-over-religious-and-democratic-identity-20141209-12320i.html?skin=text-only

Labels: Confessional State, Jews, State of Israel

14. "Montini was moved out of the Vatican and made Archbishop of Milan in 1954 in an attempt by conservative factions in Rome to reduce his influence. But the next Pope, his friend John XXIII, in 1958 made him the first of his cardinals, and he succeeded John as Pope Paul VI in 1963."

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "The renewed relevance of Paul VI", by The Rev. Fr. Bruce Duncan C.SS.R., undated, downloaded from the website of the Redemptorists of Australia and New Zealand:

http://www.cssr.org.au/contact_us/dsp-default.cfm?loadref=619

(That article came to my attention via this CathNews item.)

Labels: Paul VI. Montini

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Day within the Octave of Christmas, and the feast of St. Sylvester I., Pope, Confessor, A.D. 2014

Notes: Wednesday, December 4-Tuesday, December 31, 2013 (part 3 of 3)

15. New South Wales (N.S.W.) Premier "Mr O’Farrell said Mr Vic Alhadeff had been appointed the new Community Relations Commission’s Chair, and Mr Hakan Harman as its CEO."

The quotation in that headline comes from the media release "NEW CHAIR TO LEAD COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION", no author credited, dated Friday, December 17, 2013 (sic—presumably the author meant Tuesday, December 17, 2013, given that those appointments came to my attention via the Wednesday, December 18, 2013 issue of the Sydney Daily Telegraph), downloaded from the N.S.W. Premier's website:

http://www.premier.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/NEW%20CHAIR%20TO%20LEAD%20COMMUNITY%20RELATIONS%20COMMISSION.pdf

and also available at the Community Relations Commission's (C.R.C.'s) and Office of Communities' respective websites:

http://www.crc.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/22453/131219_New_Chair_to_Lead_Community_Relations_Commission.pdf

http://www.communities.nsw.gov.au/assets/pubs/media/citizenship_communities/131217_new_chair_to_lead_Community_Relations_Commission.pdf

For reaction to Mr. Alhadeff's appointment, see the article "George Brandis reveals new direction for human rights commission", by Deborah Snow, dated December 21, 2013, in which Ms Snow observes that

Ironically, as the Abbott government prepares to soften laws against racially offensive speech, the O'Farrell government in New South Wales seems headed down a different path. This week it appointed the chief of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff, as chairman of the state community relations commission. Alhadeff, a former South African newsman, was a fierce opponent of apartheid who lost grandparents in the Holocaust. As a consequence, he is a staunch defender of anti-discrimination laws, particularly those aimed at racism.
[downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/george-brandis-reveals-new-direction-for-human-rights-commission-20131220-2zqpk.html?skin=text-only
and brought to my attention by the version printed under the headline "Inside job draws fire", by the same author, pp. 6-7 in the "News Review" supplement of The Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, December 21-22, 2013, no issue number stated (but presumably No. 54976—the issue number for December 28-29, 2013, minus five (not seven, since The Sun-Herald doesn't count, and not six, since there was no Herald on Christmas Day)), ISSN 0312-6315]

and see also the Middle East Reality Check blog posts "The New Face of Multiculturalism in NSW" and "'A Fierce Opponent of Apartheid'", both by MERC, dated respectively Thursday, December 19, 2013 and Sunday, December 22, 2013:

http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-new-face-of-multiculturalism-in-nsw.html

http://middleeastrealitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/a-fierce-opponent-of-apartheid.html

Labels: N.S.W. Jewish Board of Deputies, Vic Alhadeff

16. "The Fraser government set up the AHRC as an almost quasi-judicial body that would have the power to enforce rulings on issues within its ambit. But a 1995 High Court judgment stripped the commission of the power to make and enforce decisions, turning it into a toothless tiger. Hence the AHRC no longer conducts hearings."

The quotation in that headline comes from the opinion piece "Brandis and Dreyfus take hypocrisy to a new level", by Prof. Peter van Onselen, dated December 21, 2013, downloaded from (behind the paywall at) The Australian's website:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/brandis-and-dreyfus-take-hypocrisy-to-a-new-level/story-fn53lw5p-1226787694605

(That opinion piece came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline (but with all the letters capitals), with the same author, on p. 18 in the "COMMENTARY" pages of the "INQUIRER" section of The Weekend Australian, December 21-22, 2013, First Edition, No. 15298, ISSN 1038-8761, published by Nationwide News Pty. Limited.)

Labels: A.H.R.C.

17. "A British Medical Journal study on euthanasia in Flanders, Belgium, found that 47 per cent of deaths were not reported. Last year The Lancet published a meta-analysis which found that 23 per cent of euthanasia deaths went unreported by doctors. In both studies, unreported euthanasia was associated with questionable and sometimes illegal practice."

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "Euthanasia advocates' overkill stymies the right-to-die debate", by Dr. Jennifer Oriel, dated December 28, 2013, downloaded from The Australian's website:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/euthanasia-advocates-overkill-stymies-the-righttodie-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226790758222

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline, with the same author, on p. 14 in the "INQUIRER" section of The Weekend Australian, December 28-29, 2013, First Edition, No. 15303, ISSN 1038-8761, published by Nationwide News Pty. Limited.)

Labels: euthanasia

18. Prof. Anderson et al. apply against life sentences an argument which is often used against the death penalty

See the opinion piece "NSW sentencing laws are out of step with its human rights obligations", by Associate Professor John Anderson, Mrs. Felicity Wardhaugh, and Mr. Daniel Matas, dated December 28, 2013, downloaded from The Sydney Morning Herald's website:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nsw-sentencing-laws-are-out-of-step-with-its-human-rights-obligations-20131227-2zz0p.html?skin=text-only

(That opinion piece came to my attention via the version printed under the headline "Parole … eventually" (ellipsis symbol in the original), with the same authors, on p. 11 of the "News Review" supplement of The Sydney Morning Herald, Weekend Edition, December 28-29, 2013, No. 54981, ISSN 0312-6315.)

Labels: crime, death penalty, justice

19. Cardinal Scola on, among other things, religious liberty and what His Eminence regards as "the proper and necessary non-confessionality of the state"

See the article "THE EDICT OF MILAN: INITIUM LIBERTATIS", by His Eminence The Most Rev. The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, on pp. 10-19 of the Humanitas review, No. 5 (Second Semester 2013), Biannual English Digital Edition, available for download from here:

http://review.humanitas.cl/

or go straight hither:

http://issuu.com/humanitas60/docs/h5_ingl__s_baja?e=2218461/6092099

Labels: religious liberty, Confessional State

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Tuesday in the Octave of Christmas, and the feast of St. Sylvester I., Pope, Confessor, A.D. 2013

Notes: Tuesday, January 1-Tuesday, February 12, 2013 (part 2 of 2)

9. Part of the reason why women can't be priests:

From the Holy Father's Angelus address in St. Peter's Square on Sunday, January 20, 2013 (His Holiness was speaking in a different context than the ineligibility of women for ordination, but the following is, as you'll see, nevertheless applicable to it):

… With this “sign”[, i.e., the sign of the miracle of the transformation of water into wine at the wedding at Cana,] Jesus revealed himself as the messianic Bridegroom come to establish with his people the new and eternal covenant, in accordance with the prophets’ words: “as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you” (Is 62:5). Moreover, wine is a symbol of this joy of love; but it also alludes to the blood that Jesus was to pour out at the end to seal his nuptial pact with humanity.

The Church is the Bride of Christ who makes her holy and beautiful with his grace. …
[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/angelus/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20130120_en.html]

Labels: womenpriests

10. "I[, Kristina Keneally,] object in conscience to the Church's teachings on women, homosexuality and contraception."

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "Talking to children about the Royal Commission", by The Hon. Kristina Keneally, dated November 22, 2012, downloaded from the Eureka Street website ("A publication of Jesuit Communications Australia"):

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=34263

Labels: Kristina Keneally

11. RU486 "is on the World Health Organisation list of essential medicines"

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "Push for abortion drugs to cost less than $12", by Linda Silmalis, dated January 31, 2013, downloaded from the Sydney Daily Telegraph's website:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/push-for-abortion-drugs-to-cost-less-than-12/story-e6freuy9-1226565413699

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline and with the same byline on p. 09 of the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Thursday, January 31, 2013, Vol. 1, No. 2760, ISSN 1038-8745, published by Nationwide News Pty. Ltd.)

Labels: abortion, U.N.O.

12. Mr. Creighton on the proportions in which the members of different income quintiles contribute towards public finance and the proportions in which it is distributed among them

See the article "Rich are paying their fair share, and then some", by Adam Creighton, dated February 2, 2013, downloaded from (behind the paywall at) The Australian's website:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/rich-are-paying-their-fair-share-and-then-some/story-fn59niix-1226567054479

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline and with the same byline on p. 15 in the "INQUIRER" section of The Weekend Australian, February 2-3, 2013, First Edition, No. 15031, ISSN 1038-8761, published by Nationwide News Pty. Limited.)

Labels: economics, justice, taxation

13. "In the beginning our work was the conversion of the Jews, but after the Holocaust we realised no, we don’t go out to convert people, we should have Jewish-Christian relations."

The quotation in that headline comes from the article "Catholics honoured for service to nation", by Sharyn McCowen and Damir Govorcin, dated February 3, 2013, downloaded from the Sydney Catholic Weekly's website:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=11625&class=Latest News&subclass=CW National

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the same headline and with the same byline on pp. 1 and 5 (p. 5's part of the article was headlined "Aust Day honours for Catholics") of the Sydney Catholic Weekly, February 3, 2013, Vol. 72, No. 4658, published by The Catholic Press Newspaper Company Pty. Ltd.)

Labels: inter-religious dialogue, Jews, N.D.S.

14. "The Vatican is spearheading the initiative to study the construction and painting techniques of sarcophagi during Egypt's so-called Third Intermediate Period, which was 3,000 years ago."

The quotation in that headline comes from the Catholic News Service (C.N.S.) article "Vatican mummy health check: It's never too late for an endoscopy", by Carol Glatz, dated January 18, 2013, downloaded from the C.N.S.'s website:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300235.htm

(That article came to my attention via the version printed under the headline "Mummy check-up finds 'she' is a 'he'", by the same author, on p. 22 (the "Vatican Letter, Classifieds" page) of the Sydney Catholic Weekly, February 3, 2013, Vol. 72, No. 4658, published by The Catholic Press Newspaper Company Pty. Ltd. "Mummy check-up finds 'she' is a 'he'" is available on-line under the same headline as at the C.N.S. website, by the same author, dated January 21, 2013, at The Catholic Weekly's website here:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=84&articleID=11578&class=Latest%20News&subclass=Breaking%20News)

Labels: Egypt, Vatican Museums

15. "the Catholic Church opposes legal sanctions against homosexuality and favors legal protections for unmarried people living together"

The quotation in that headline comes from the Catholic News Service (C.N.S.) article "Defend traditional family, rights of others, archbishop says", by Cindy Wooden, dated February 4, 2013, downloaded from the C.N.S. website:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1300458.htm

That C.N.S. article reports that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family (who is apparently also a member of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelisation),

said the Catholic Church affirms "the equal dignity of every child of God. No one lacks the dignity of being a child of God, so that is untouchable."

While the church opposes recognizing gay unions as "marriage," he said, it affirms the full dignity of homosexual men and women. "If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it," he said, adding that he believed there are still "20 or 25 countries" that define homosexuality as a crime.

Archbishop Paglia also called for greater efforts to ensure legal protection and inheritance rights for people who are living together, but not married. "To promote justice and to protect the weak," he said, legal means must be found to guarantee rights and regulate inheritance.

"But do not call it marriage," he said.

For discussion on Msgr. Paglia's remarks, see this AQ thread, this Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum thread, this CathInfo.com Traditional Catholic Forum thread, and the comments section of this Rorate Cæli post. For follow-up material, see this Rorate Cæli post and this LifeSiteNews.com report.

(Msgr. Paglia's remarks came to my attention via the article "We must defend marriage: Vatican", by Cindy Wooden, on p. 7 (the "World News" page) of the Sydney Catholic Weekly, February 10, 2013, Vol. 72, No. 4659, published by The Catholic Press Newspaper Company Pty. Ltd. An online version of that article is available under the headline "We must defend marriage: Vatican Church[ sic]", with the same byline and date, at The Catholic Weekly's website here.)

Labels: civil unions, crime, G.L.B.T., Roman Curia, vice, Vincenzo Paglia

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Seven Holy Founders of the Servite Order, Confessors, A.D. 2013

Notes: Tuesday, September 27-Tuesday, October 4, 2011 (part 2 of 2)

7. On the death penalty

7.1 "Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the “Consistent Ethic of Life” at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the “classical position” that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment"; "[a]lthough Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a “consistent ethic of life,” he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide."

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

(That came to my attention via this post by Fr. Zuhlsdorf.)

Labels: death penalty, Joseph Bernardin

7.2 Prof. Feser on the death penalty

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4033

That article, which came to my attention via this blog post by Prof. Feser, is well worth reading in full (and it isn't too long), but I want to highlight these parts, at least:

Most critics of capital punishment pay little attention to the question of “punishment,” focusing almost exclusively on their argument with “capital.” This is a fatal mistake, for as it happens, anyone who agrees that punishment as such is legitimate cannot fail also to agree, if he thinks carefully about the matter, that capital punishment can be legitimate, at least in principle. ...

[...] If wrongdoers do deserve punishment, and if punishment ought to be scaled to the gravity of the crime (harsher punishments for graver crimes), then it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle. ...

[... Against the argument that the death penalty is offensive to 'human dignity':] ... On the contrary, to regard a person as deserving of punishment is implicitly to affirm his dignity as a human being, for it is to acknowledge that he has free will and moral responsibility, unlike a robot or a mere animal. If inflicting lesser punishments is not incompatible with human dignity and even implicitly affirms it, then given the principle of proportionality, capital punishment also can be compatible with (and indeed an affirmation of) human dignity.
[italics in the original, my ellipses and square-bracketed interpolations]

Labels: death penalty, human dignity, justice, morality

7.3 Two blog comments by Prof. Feser on New Natural Law theory and the death penalty

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-defense-of-capital-punishment.html?showComment=1317504347621#c79084043059913225

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/in-defense-of-capital-punishment.html?showComment=1317504714308#c3938891609449872006

Labels: death penalty, justice, morality, New Natural Law

7.4 Prof. Long on the death penalty

http://thomistica.net/news/2011/9/18/goods-without-normative-order-to-the-good-life-happiness-or.html

That's quite a technical article, but I recommend that you read at least the paragraph (beginning with the words "Still, Tollefsen is consistent") on the Church's teaching on the death penalty. (Most usefully for me, it mentions a pronouncement by Pius XII. on the matter; in item 4 of this edition of Notes I linked to this web-page of the (Italian) text of that pronouncement, and now I see that it is also available, again in Italian, on pages seventy-two to eighty-five of AAS 47 (1955) here.)

Labels: death penalty, justice, Magisterium, morality, Pius XII. Pacelli

8. "No to legal marriages if Church forced to marry gays: archbishop"

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=28476

Labels: Barry Hickey, funerals, G.L.B.T., marriage

9. The Catholica Forum welcomes a new participant

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=thread&id=84919

Labels: Aragon, Catholica Australia

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, Confessor, A.D. 2011

Notes: Tuesday, May 31-Monday, June 6, 2011

1. "Reverse proof of title, says Paul Keating"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/aboriginal-australia/reverse-proof-of-title-says-paul-keating/story-e6frgd9f-1226066787825

Labels: burden of proof, justice, law

2. "Neocatechumenal Way Invites German Youth to Madrid"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37573

Labels: Jews, Neo-catechumenal Way

3. Fr. Scott on Universæ Ecclesiæ

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37569

Labels: Benedict XVI. Ratzinger, Kurt Koch, liturgy, N.O.M., Peter Scott, T.L.M., Universæ Ecclesiæ

4. Mr. Muehlenberg on, among other things, how "[t]he exact Islamic requirements for halal slaughter ... may not be fully clear, at least in some quarters"

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/05/31/tortured-cows-and-babies/

Labels: Islam

5. "Gay softball league can limit straight players, [U.S.] Judge rules"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/gay-softball-league-can-limit-straight-players-judge-rules/story-fn3dxity-1226068573943

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

6. Mr. Bellet on the size of the homosexual proportion of the population

The comment of 6.6.11 / 8pm in the combox here:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/06/02/why-radical-agendas-are-winning/

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

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Norbert, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2011

Notes: Thursday, March 31-Monday, April 4, 2011

1. The Conciliar Church and the 'search for truth'

1.1 "[Vatican] MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS: TRUTH IS NECESSARY TO SEEK PEACE"

Excerpts from one of the Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletins of last week:

MESSAGE TO BUDDHISTS: TRUTH IS NECESSARY TO SEEK PEACE

VATICAN CITY, 31 MAR 2011 (VIS) - Made public today was the annual Message to Buddhists for the Feast of Vesakh, issued by the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. [...]

The message, which is entitled "Seeking Truth in Freedom: Christians and Buddhists live in Peace", Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and Archbishop Pier Luigi Celata, respectively president and secretary of the pontifical council, note that "in the pursuit of authentic peace, a commitment to seek truth is a necessary condition. ... This human striving for truth offers a fruitful opportunity for the followers of the different religions to encounter one another in depth and to grow in appreciation of the gifts of each".

The English-language text continues: "[...] Wherever religious freedom is effectively acknowledged, the dignity of the human person is respected at its root; by the sincere search for what is true and good, moral conscience and civil institutions are strengthened; and justice and peace are firmly established". CON-DIR/ VIS 20110331 (270)
[my square-bracketed ellipses]

See also the discussion on that Message at AQ:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36698

Labels: inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, Roman Curia

1.2 Dr. Casey on how the shared 'search for truth' leads to social Nirvana

A question put to Dr. Michael Casey, who works for the Sydney Archdiocese, in an interview, followed by his answer:

But how can you possibly be tolerant if you believe in truth? Aren’t you thereby committed to discriminating against people who don’t accept “your truth”?

Casey: That view explains why relativism is regarded as the only form of moral philosophy safe for democracy. Given the abundance of conflicting views, values and desires, and the adamant insistence on our own supremacy, truth appears to be not only implausible but tyrannical. When truth prevails, so the standard line goes, it narrows existence, constrains the possibilities of knowledge, and limits freedom and autonomy. Its ideas of “good and evil”, “true and false” cause division and intolerance.

The way forward is to move from a stubborn insistence that there is no such thing as truth, or that truth is dangerous, to conceding that perhaps truth is possible and available to us after all, and that in our own way we are all seeking it.

Conceding the possibility of truth, and that we all share a desire to find the truth and to live in its light, changes the situation completely. Nothing is lost from diversity, disagreement, scepticism and dispute, but they are re-located within a common journey which makes trust, openness and respect for each other in our different moral commitments stronger and easier. This is what real tolerance means.

Truth is not an answer in a box and it is not a cudgel. It is the unfolding of reality in which each of us takes part. Wherever our own search for the truth might lead us, the shared acceptance that it is the truth we are all seeking changes the game. It takes us out of the dead end of intolerant tolerance.
[http://members7.boardhost.com/CathPews/thread/1301520054.html]

In other words (at the risk of over-simplification): In order to bring about a Utopia of 'tolerance', relativism about the existence of truth is forbidden, but relativism (at least at the level of society) about the essence of truth is compulsory. So long as we agree that truth is, we can all live in harmony even though we disagree about what truth is. Yeah, right.

Labels: Michael Casey

2. "Vatican II coming to Orthodox churches?"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36676

Labels: Eastern Schism

3. "Company Uses Fetal Cells From Abortions for [testing of] Artificial Flavors"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36663

See also:

"Companies Stop Using Abortion Cells to Test Artificial Flavors"
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36699

Labels: abortion, Senomyx

4. Pius XII. on the death penalty

In this comment by a reader at Dr. Feser's blog, I found a link to the text of a speech which Pius XII. gave which dealt with the death penalty and for which I had previously looked unsuccessfully. (Though for lack of time I have not read the post in whose combox I found that comment, I did read Dr. Feser's subsequent post and it's worth reading, though not perfect (but, again for lack of time, I can't write a critique of it).) Here is the link to the text of that speech (in Italian):

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1955/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19550205_unione-giuristi-cattolici_it.html

Labels: death penalty, justice, morality, Pius XII. Pacelli

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Isidore, Bishop, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2011

Notes: Thursday, November 18, 2010

1. The latest regarding so-called gay marriage in Australia

1.1 "K[evin] Rudd agreed to back same-sex civil unions at last year's ALP National Conference in a private deal with key Left faction leaders", and, "[a] Sky News poll of 39 Labor MPs yesterday found 22 in support of marriage equality"

(Warning: The following link leads to a web-page with a photo, at the top of the page, of a pair of presumably 'newlywed' Lesbians smooching)
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/gay-marriage-policy-splits-labor/story-e6freuzr-1225954652794

1.2 "Gillard clears way for gay marriage debate"

"JULIA GILLARD has given the green light for Labor's national conference to be brought forward by more than six months so the party can have a full-blown fight over policy differences without hurting its election chances":
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-clears-way-for-gay-marriage-debate-20101117-17xps.html?skin=text-only

"Party may decide on gay marriage, but I choose whether to implement it: Gillard"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/party-may-decide-on-gay-marriage-but-i-choose-whether-to-implement-it-gillard/story-fn59niix-1225955208166

1.3 Analysis, by Ms Grattan, of the implications of Federal Labor's decision to support the gay-marriage-related motion in Parliament

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/hot-issue-poses-dilemma-for-pm-20101116-17vyl.html?skin=text-only

2. A couple of recent developments regarding Russia

2.1 "Russia plans to move its people to big towns"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/russia-plans-to-move-its-people-to-big-towns-20101117-17xp9.html?skin=text-only

2.2 "Church restitution: Orthodox send threatening response to Mgr. Pezzi"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34733

3. Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's new website: Too many comments, one of which is quite long, to bother reproducing them here, so I'll just give the link to the main thread:

http://scecclesia.com/?p=4569#comments

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Monday, October 30-November 1, 2010 (part 2 of 2)

5. Fr. Zuhlsdorf on, among other things, another deficiency of the N.O.M. (this time in the changes to the main orations for the Mass of the Feast of the Kingship of Christ):

Again, the first part of the prayer [NEWER SUPER OBLATA (2002MR)] is same as the older. In the Latin there are minor changes, but it is effectively the same. The second part, however, shows the theological change desired by the snipping and pasting experts of Fr. Bugnini’s Consilium. In the older prayer there is an explicit appeal to “sacrifice” with also a strong verb “immolate”. This sacrificial language was removed from the newer prayer. But this prayer retains the reference “nations” (gentes).
[http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/wdtprs-christ-the-king-1962mr-no-hugs-and-fluffy-lambs/]

See also the comments of Mr. Keener here for more on the Kingship of Christ.

6. An interesting observation by Dr. Brown on The Catechism of The Catholic Church's treatment of the death penalty

If I'm not mistaken, this is something which I too had noticed:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/archbp-card-burke-on-the-obligation-to-vote-properly/#comment-231304

7. Interesting books reviewed/mentioned in the weekend papers

The Verso Book of Dissent
Preface by Tariq Ali
Verso 366pp, $29.95

[...] In Praise of Copying
By Marcus Boon
Harvard University Press285pp, $42.95
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/another-side-of-pakistan/story-e6frg8nf-1225943750917]

Also from The Weekend Australian:

HOW to write a press release with a straight face, a lesson in one sentence courtesy of Scribe publishers: "Scribe will be publishing The Australian Book of Atheism, edited by Warren Bonett, on November 22, just in time for Christmas."
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/senators-tryout/story-e6frgdk6-1225945334827]

Plus one book reviewed today at a blog:

A Review of Politics According to the Bible. By Wayne Grudem.

Zondervan, 2010. (Available in Australia at Koorong Books)
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/11/01/a-review-of-politics-according-to-the-bible-by-wayne-grudem/]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
All Saints' Day, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, September 2, 2010

The latest on the N.S.W. same-sex adoption Bill

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keneally-to-support-samesex-adoption-20100901-14nnf.html?skin=text-only

Also, a story from the other day which I seem to have missed earlier (it came to my attention via yesterday's CathNews):

"Keneally denies Greens deal on adoption"
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/keneally-denies-greens-deal-on-adoption-20100831-14f4n.html

A 'female-to-male transsexual' on the differences between men and women

In an opinion piece in today's Herald: (warning: The article could be an occasion of sin for some readers)

[Dr. Bettina] Arndt told [the opinion piece's author, Mr. Paul Sheehan] her favourite person in [her latest] book is a transsexual, Anita Wolfe Valerio, who became Max Wolf Valerio, and wrote a memoir about the metamorphosis from woman to man. In The Testosterone Files, published in 2006, Valerio confronts, from first-hand experience, the divide caused by differing male and female testosterone levels: ''Now that I am Max, I see this rift, this fundamental chasm between men and women's perceptions and experience of sexuality, is one that may never be bridged. There certainly can be no hope for understanding as long as society pretends that men and women are really the same, that the culture of male sexuality is simply a conflation of misogyny and dysfunction. That the male libido is shaped and driven primarily by socialisation that can be legislated or 'psychobabbled' out of existence.''
[http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-secret-desires-of-men-and-why-they-go-unfulfilled-20100901-14nhj.html?skin=text-only]

'Historic' Labor-Greens pact

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pm-julia-gillards-high-risk-greens-embrace/story-fn59niix-1225913033761

Mr. Muehlenberg on justice: "Biblical justice", retributive justice, and distributive justice

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/01/%e2%80%98social-justice%e2%80%99-versus-biblical-justice/

I don't have time to do a proper rebuttal, or at least critique, of Mr. Muehlenberg's post, so I'll just offer a few thoughts without weaving them into a properly-structured essay:

Mr. Muehlberg says that his intention in writing that post is to

concentrate on just two [kinds of justice]: retributive justice and distributive justice. The former goes back at least to Aristotle and means simply, “to each man his due”. It has to do with giving people what they deserve. Thus we speak about ‘just deserts’ and so on.

The latter term is a more recent concept, and has to do with equality of outcome, and redistributing certain goods, including wealth, to ostensibly help out the less fortunate. It is what is often meant when the left – both secular and religious – speak about social justice.

Now the first problem is that it is justice in the broadest sense of the word, not justice in the narrower sense of retributive justice, which is said simply to render to each his due. Retributive justice is concerned with rendering to the evil-doer what is his due, namely, a punishment proportionate in severity to the severity of his evil-doing. Before reading Mr. Muehlenberg's post I had never heard of the term 'retributive justice' being used to describe anything other than the justice applying to evildoers.

As for distributive justice: As regards the virtue of justice among humans (obviously neither Mr. Muehlenberg nor I are concerned with justice towards God, which is the virtue of religion), there are two 'sub-virtues', so to speak, under it: Commutative justice and social justice. Commuative justice is individual-to-individual justice, whereas social justice is individual-to-society or society-to-individual justice. Sometimes the term 'social justice' is (or perhaps I should say "before the term 'social justice' was appropriated for describing what would be at best really social charity, and at worst assorted politically-correct causes, the term 'social justice' was ...") used only for individual-to-society justice (otherwise the term 'legal justice' is commonly used, since the individual's duties as a member of society are prescribed for him by law), while distributive justice is society-to-individual justice. All distributive justice means is that the burdens and benefits of being part of a society are distributed to each member of society in proportion to each member's talents and abilities and capacities and so on. So there is nothing sinister or 'un-Biblical' about the term at all; the alternative to distributive justice would be the injustice of burdens and benefits being conferred on everyone without taking into account the burdens and benefits which they have already received from nature or other circumstances.

Mr. Muehlenberg goes on:

At the risk of oversimplifying matters, it seems that the notion of retributive justice is more closely aligned with biblical notions of justice, while distributive justice is further afield from Scriptural principles. But this can hardly be defended adequately in a brief article, even in a most superficial fashion.

But although Mr. Muehlenberg goes out of his way to stress that he does not intend to offer an exhaustive treatise, he is still signalling that it is his opinion that distributive justice is "further afield from Scriptural principles". That opinion is clearly fallacious given the outline which I have provided of the true meaning of distributive justice, but the basis for this opinion becomes clearer in his next paragraph:

We would need to closely examine biblical terms such as justice, righteousness and the like. We would need to look at contemporary economic options as well. And we would need to study the historical record to see whether wealth redistribution has in fact worked, and really helped the poor. But let me tease things out just a bit more here.
[my emphasis]

So Mr. Muehlenberg's focus is on wealth redistribution--by 'distributive justice' he seems to conceive of something involving redistribution of wealth/income in order to achieve "equality of outcome". But distributive justice does not mean taking some of the wealth and income of the rich and transferring it to the poor so that they have equal wealth and income. It just means that when the government seeks to impose a burden on its subjects it needs to take into account what burdens and benefits they already have, and likewise for distributing the benefits of living in society. So as regards wealth redistribution, there is not necessarily any sin against properly-understood distributive justice involved in allowing inequality of wealth and income to persist, but there would be a sin against distributive justice on the part of the government if the government were to treat poor people the same as rich people, e.g. by taxing them all at a flat rate of taxation. Mr. Muehlenberg should have no problem agreeing that such a thing would be unjust, given that he agrees that "treat[ing] unequals equally ... is neither fair nor just."

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Stephen, King, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, August 14-17, 2010

More on the morality and legality of voting in Australian Federal elections

From yestereday's Herald:

In an anti-climactic ‘journalistic’ debut, former Labor leader Mark Latham revealed he will be lodging a protest vote this Saturday — and is urging others to follow suit.

[...] Mr Latham revealed his intention last night to place a ‘‘totally blank’’ ballot in the box as he posed as a journalist for a special report on the federal election for 60 Minutes.
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/leave-ballot-blank-latham-tells-voters-20100815-1257h.html?skin=text-only]

According to the transcript for Mr. Latham's report for 60 Minutes, he said that

When it comes to good ideas for Australia's future, Gillard and Abbott have given the voters a blank piece of paper. I say let's give them a blank piece of paper in return. They say voting is compulsory in Australia, but it's not compulsory to fill out the ballot paper. You can put it straight into the ballot box totally blank - that's what I'll be doing next Saturday, and I urge you to do the same. It's the ultimate protest vote.
[http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/7944020/latham-at-large]

Mr. Latham (the former Member for Werriwa, to which electorate I belong) is incorrect to say that it is "not compulsory to fill out the ballot paper"--a particularly disappointing error to hear coming from a former Leader of the Opposition. As I said recently at Terra's blog,

Section 245(1) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 gives the following command:

"It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election."
[http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/14E2E2F9F0662775CA2576080017348A/$file/CwlthElectoral1918_WD02.pdf]

(The same Act (Section 101) also commands us to apply "forthwith" to become electors if not electors already. Also, Sections 239 and 240 prescribe the manner of voting for Senate and Lower House elections, respectively, thus ruling out the possibility that an informal vote could satisfy the obligation to vote.)

So given that the requirements imposed in the Act are, as far as I know, just, possible, and properly promulgated, the Act is a valid law and thus its commands are binding in conscience (I have no reason to think that they are purely penal) and it would therefore be a sin not to vote (properly).

To sum up:

1. Australian law commands non-electors to become electors.
2. Australian law commands electors to vote (and not merely informally).
3. A lawful command by a competent authority (which is what the preceding commands are) binds on pain of sin, so informal voting is sinful, as is obstinate non-enrolment.
(Obviously there are also exceptions.)
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html?showComment=1279552733981#c6237896335231841561]

Meanwhile, according to a report, apparently not available on-line, on page five of yesterday's Sydney Daily Telegraph entitled "Latham's informal vote call" by Nathan Klein and Alison Rehn,

While [1] it's not illegal to vote informally, [2] it is an offence to encourage others to do so.
[my square-bracketed interpolations]

(See also here for another instance of 2). I was interested to read that, because those two propositions were also raised in the blog comment which elicit my own blog comment quoted above:

One correction - since Australia has secret ballots the requirement is to attend a polling station. One can then voting informally. The candidates are usually so shameful it is surprising that the informal vote is not higher - never high enough to invalidate the poll.

What is wicked is that it is illegal to encourage informal voting - which is often the only moral choice.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html?showComment=1279436353532#c2689661911322685743]

I've shown that 1 is mistaken, and as for 2, I was interested to read the following in that Herald article:

It was not illegal for Mr Latham to promote the casting of blank votes, Australian Electoral Commission spokesman Phil Diak said.

"There's no explicit provision in the electoral act against someone telling someone else to cast an informal vote as an opinion or a view," he said.

However, it was an offence to publish information that could cause people to cast an informal vote, such as a misleading election ad.

It seems that 1 and 2 are something of an urban myth, then. As for 2 though, although there might not be any explicit prohibition against "telling someone else to cast an informal vote as an opinion or a view", any command implicitly forbids its contradictory, and it hardly seems becoming of a conscientious elector to tell others, even if only "as an opinion or view", to shirk their duties.

Mr. Gurries on Msgr. Gherardini's book The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion

http://opuscula.blogspot.com/2010/08/msgr-gherardini-on-vatican-ii.html

An amusing joke, told by Dr. Brown, on France's (and, by extension, the West's) demographic prospects

From a comment by Dr. Brown at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog:

You know the old joke. If Lefebvre wins, the liturgical language of France will be Latin. And if he loses, it will be Arabic.

Comment by robtbrown — 16 August 2010 @ 8:18 am
[http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/if-all-time-is-eternally-present-all-time-is-unredeemable/#comment-218822]

The beliefs and non-beliefs of a man who has spent "forty six years involved in Catholic education"

http://www.catholica.com.au/gc2/ge/008_ge_140810.php

(In related matters, see here for some of Mr. Coyne's opinions on the "real Jesus".)

Cardinal O'Brien on the death penalty and related matters

His Eminence The Cardinal Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh has written a dreadful opinion piece for Scotland on Sunday. The column came to my attention via a Catholic News Service article which appeared in last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly under the headline "Cardinal attacks US 'vengeance culture'" (see here for a copy of the article at the C.N.S.'s own website). When I saw that headline I thought of St. Thomas Aquinas on the virtue of vengeance in the Summa, IIa IIæ, q. 108. If I had time I'd write I thorough rebuttal of His Eminence's article (a quick look at it indicates that it is even worse than it seemed in the C.N.S. report on it), but I don't at the moment, unfortunately (though there's a chance that I might write a confutation later.)

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Hyacinth, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Mr. Justice Kirby on the prospects for a government apology to sodomites (seriously)

The Hon. Michael Kirby A.C. C.M.G. has written some interesting things in a document whose intended audience is youngsters and which apparently was obtained by News Limited (it was reported in yesterday's Daily Telegraph and Herald Sun):

[...] "Openness about sexuality helps to destroy the foundation for prejudice and discrimination," he has written in a new collection of essays.

"One day there will be a big parliamentary apology . . . to gay people for the oppression that was forced on them and the inequalities that were maintained in the law well beyond their use-by date. Just like the delayed 2008 apology to the Aboriginal people of our country."

Justice Kirby, 71, has contributed to a collection of essays about justice issues, distributed to secondary schools and universities.

Future Justice is published by the Future Leaders initiative, with essays by Julian Burnside QC and Nobel Laureate Professor Peter Doherty.

[...] "I also do not doubt that, in a comparatively short time, Australia will move towards same-sex civil unions and gay marriage," he writes.

"No one has satisfactorily explained how my 40-year loving relationship with my partner Johan in any way affects (still less undermines) heterosexual marriage.

"If Australians are now more homophobic than racist, as some recent public opinion polls suggest, this is because Australians have lacked good leadership on this issue."

He says that just as Australians overcame racism by "getting to know" people of different races, "we would all overcome homophobia more quickly if every gay person were open and felt able to say without fear of violence and discrimination: 'This is me. Get over it. It is no big deal!'." [...]
[my square-bracketed interpolations,
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/we-should-apologise-to-gays-says-former-justice-michael-kirby/story-e6freuy9-1225842095659]

So Mr. Justice Kirby says that

[n]o one has satisfactorily explained how [his] 40-year loving relationship with [his] partner Johan in any way affects (still less undermines) heterosexual marriage.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, Your Honour, but: It's the buggery. Love means willing the highest good for another, and the good is that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it. Buggery, or whatever you and your confederates do to each other, doesn't suit anyone's nature, and therefore can never be a true expression of love, which is the heart of a marriage. Buggery ain't pretty, and any institution associated with it is tarnished thereby. In these and other ways, same-sex pairings like yours undermine opposite-sex matrimony (which is the only kind of matrimony, of course). But of course, Mr. Justice Kirby will not acknowledge this, because evidently he subscribes to the Sodomites' League's overall strategy of diverting the public discourse on sodomites away from behaviour and towards identity--hence his talk of "'This is me. Get over it."

The Future Leaders website has a section devoted to Future Justice, and while the Publications section confirms that the document is targeted at youngsters ("A free copy available for every secondary school"), apparently it is not available to the wider community. Pity. I would have liked to see what other perverted notions of justice, in addition to those peddled by Mr. Justice Kirby, positivists are trying to inflict on impressionable schoolchildren.

Here are the choicest of the comments at the on-line versions of the News Limited articles:

From http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/we-should-apologise-to-gays-says-former-justice-michael-kirby/comments-e6freuy9-1225842095659:

john Posted at 9:05 AM March 18, 2010
why not just be sorry for being white hetrosexual tax paying christians, this way we've covered all bases..

Comment 5 of 17

JohhnyG of Sydney Posted at 9:38 AM March 18, 2010
If you were to say "Australians are homophobic" you would be racist.... right?

Comment 8 of 17

From http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/former-high-court-michael-kirby-predicts-public-apology-to-homosexuals/comments-e6frf7jo-1225842096421:

Paul of Melbourne Posted at 3:57 AM March 18, 2010
How can you compare people's not exceptance of homosexuals with racism? This article states that recent public opinion polls show people are not excepting of homosexual practices due to poor leadership. Wot the!!!! The poll shows exactly what it shows. The silent majority are saying they don"t accept homosexual behaviour, don' you get it!!!!!

Comment 2 of 49

Barry Jones of Balnarring Beach Posted at 5:45 AM March 18, 2010
I would have thought it more appropriate for gays to apologize for their part in inflicting aids on the hetrosexual community.

Comment 6 of 49

Sean Posted at 6:08 AM March 18, 2010
Gay people should receive an apology. Sooo, to all the gay people out there..."I'm sorry you are gay". I hope that makes everyone feel better, particulary those anti-homophobes...

Comment 9 of 49

Father of 4 Posted at 6:20 AM March 18, 2010
Sorry??? What for??? They chose that unhealthy, immoral lifestyle, it wasn't forced on them

Comment 10 of 49

tommy of melb Posted at 7:40 AM March 18, 2010
NO WAY

Comment 24 of 49

Rob of Melbourne Posted at 7:51 AM March 18, 2010
Justice Kirby is a fool. I will never apologise to sinners engaged in "unnatural" and depraved behaviour. Homosexuals need to apologise to God and repent of their sinful lifestyle.

Comment 29 of 49

William of Carlton Posted at 8:40 AM March 18, 2010
Sigh . . . looks like my time has come. I'm a middle-aged, white, Anglo-Celtic heterosexual male who has raised a family, works hard, eschews government welfare, tries to get on with everyone and sometimes attends a Christian church service. So all you perpetually aggrieved whingers, line up over there and I'll dispense my apologies as genuinely as possible.

Comment 43 of 49

Stevo of Yarrambat Posted at 8:40 AM March 18, 2010
Gays should be apologising to US for rubbing their sexuality in our faces!!! Get this idiot off the bench!!!!!

Comment 44 of 49

There was no editorial on the matter in The Daily Telegraph, but apparently there was one in The Herald Sun, with this at its website:

No more sorries

From: Herald Sun March 18, 2010 12:00AM

FORMER High Court judge Michael Kirby believes there will be "a big parliamentary apology" to gay people.

But the question is, should there be?

As reported in the Herald Sun, Justice Kirby has contributed to a collection of essays on justice issues to be sent to secondary schools and universities.

He says Australians "are now more homophobic than racist" and likens a gay apology to prime Minister Kevin Rudd's "sorry" in 2008 to Aborigines.

But many Australians will question Justice Kirby's analogy.

It represents a collective guilt to which most of us would plead innocence.

How many times are we to say "sorry" and for how many injustices, real or perceived?

What is more important is to recognise discrimination and remove it, not seek to lay blame.
[http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/no-more-sorries/story-e6frfhqo-1225842055438]

Disappointing. It's good that The Herald Sun doesn't support Mr. Justice Kirby's mooted apology, but that newspaper fails to discriminate between just and unjust discrimination. I am not aware of any official unjust discrimination against sodomites in Australia at any time between colonisation and the present, though of course there has been plenty of just discrimination. Mind you, some laws regarded as discriminating against 'G.L.B.T.' folk did nothing of the sort; the matter of so-called anti-homosexuality laws, for instance, was acts, not orientations, and applied to sodomites regardless of whether they were homosexual or heterosexual and to catamites regardless of whether they were male or female.

So, with a Parlimentary apology to the so-called gay community (properly the gay contingent, since the members of a community, by definition, strive after a common good, not after vice) in the not-too-distant future, one wonders: Will Australia's gay precincts start to hold Welcome to Queer Country ceremonies at events like Sydney's annual Sodomites' Parade?! Stay tuned, though for all I know something of the sort happens already!

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Joseph, Spouse of The Blessed Virgin Mary, Confessor, A.D. 2010.

A comment at The Punch on India’s High Court ruling on sodomy

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/only-now-is-it-legal-to-be-gay-in-india/

As you probably know by now, India’s High Court has capped off “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month” in style, ruling that section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 is unconstitutional. Section 377 says:

Unnatural Offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life …

So another one bites the dust (or should that be pillow?!) and joins Club Buggery, abandoning the natural law in favour of a crude positivism. Here is a comment which I have submitted for publication at http://www.thepunch.com.au/, a website which News Limited bills as “Australia’s best conversation” and aims to develop into the Australian answer to the Huffington Post, in response to an article by Mr. Stephen Keim S.C., examining the ruling in greater depth (but no less approvingly) than the other reports which I’ve read:

***

“Only now is it legal to be gay in India”

An inadequate headline because, as the article goes on to note, ‘gayness’ wasn’t illegal; rather, buggery was illegal, regardless of whether the sodomite was homosexual or heterosexual and regardless of whether the catamite was male or female. For this reason, plus the fact that other reports indicate that sodomy might just be de-criminalised rather than legalised, a more apt headline would be something like “Only now can people sodomise other people (and, apparently, animals) with impunity in India”.

“Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, although drafted by Lord Macaulay, speaks with the coyness of Queen Victoria.”

I don’t think it’s necessarily a matter of “coyness”, or a reluctance to use the terms “buggery” or “sodomy”, or that it’s a “euphemism” to speak of “carnal intercourse against the law of nature”. The laws of morality, and in turn the laws of society, can have their basis only in either natural law—in which the good is that which suits the objective *nature* of the thing desiring it—or in positive law, in which the good is whatever the person desiring it might like to *posit* as good, which is to say, the good is whatever people will consent to, and hence ultimately the good is, for positivists, whatever suits people’s subjective tastes and preferences. (One might suggest that a third alternative would be some combination of natural law and positive law, but since the combination would be determined by the tastes and preferences of the person determining it, it would still be fundamentally positivist, and hence there really are just two alternatives.) But people will consent to all sorts of self-destructive things (just look at the unfortunate David Carradine), so natural law is the only reasonable basis for morality. But India, it seems, has decided to embrace the Western liberal lunacy of positivism, and embraces it for the flimsiest of reasons—anti-buggery laws do not contradict any of the three cited articles of the Indian Constitution, and as for the effects of anti-buggery laws on A.I.D.S. prevention programmes, the role of the *justice* system is to adjudicate on matters of *justice*, not matters of prudence; prudential matters are the concern of the executive branch of government. And the notion of sodomy as a ‘human right’ is laughable: rights can only have what is true and good as their object, and since the good can only be that which suits the nature of the thing desiring it, sodomy cannot possibly be the object of a proper right, since it does not suit the respective natures of the organs involved or of the persons involved.

“The judgment is particularly moving where it recounts …”

Here we have two logical fallacies: the appeal to emotion, and the violation of the principle that abuse does not detract from use. The fact that police abused their authority and used brutality against sodomites does not diminish the brutality of sodomy, and both kinds of brutality should be punished in a just society.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com
Thank You!
Your comment will be reviewed by a moderator for approval.

***

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Elizabeth of Portugal, Queen, Widow, A.D. 2009

Mr. Ackland on the work of The Hon. David Levine Q.C.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/triumphs-and-disgraces-of-law-and-order-20090402-9kwo.html?page=-1

Mr. Richard Ackland has an opinion piece in today's Sydney Morning Herald on The Hon. David Levine Q.C., a former barrister and Supreme Court judge who is the Chairman of N.S.W.'s Serious Offenders Review Council (S.O.R.C.), which

has the job of recommending the classification and placement of about 700 of the state's most serious prison inmates. These are people who typically have minimum prison sentences of 12 years.

Mr. Ackland reports that

After three years of SORCing, Levine questions how much good is being done by keeping a lot of prisoners locked up for longer and longer. "I fail to see the purpose that is served by any sentence longer than 20 years." There are some notable exceptions.

Only “some notable exceptions”? The problem is his rule, not the exceptions. Does Mr. Levine seriously think that it is not a fitting rule that murderers, rapists and other criminals of similar notoriety should not in general, as a matter of strict legal justice, serve more than twenty years in gaol? Indeed, for many of these offenders a custodial sentence would be inadequate retribution; in many of these cases the death penalty ought to be imposed.

Next, Mr. Ackland brings up

the case of Andrew Kalajzich, who was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to 28 years for the contract killing of his wife. He still has more than 2½ years before he is eligible for parole. "What is the point of it?" Levine asks. Will the extra years enhance Kalajzich's redemption, rehabilitation or make society safer?

So the offender is a man who has murdered someone—it makes no difference whether the instrument he uses is the murder weapon or a contract killer—and yet Mr. Levine appears to think that Kalajzich should not even serve twenty-eight years in gaol. If we as a society were serious about keeping the scales of justice in balance then Kalajzich should have hanged, yet Mr. Levine—who worked as a jurist, whether judge or barrister, for almost forty years—can see no point in Kalajzich even serving a (manifestly inadequate, but better than a lesser sentence I suppose) full twenty-eight years in gaol. Mr. Ackland asks rhetorically “[w]ill the extra years enhance Kalajzich's redemption, rehabilitation or make society safer?”, but he seems to ignore a fourth—but the most important of all—criterion (or at least, ignores the key aspect of the redemption criterion): the need for the offender to pay in full his debt to society, a debt that requires that he offers adequate satisfaction in retribution for his crime, which was clearly among the most serious of all crimes. The essence of justice is to render to each what he is owed (and clearly Kalajzich owes a good deal more than just twenty-eight years of his life when he has taken life itself away from his own wife) yet this seems not to matter greatly, or even at all, to Mr. Ackland, and whether or not it matters to Mr. Levine it seems that, if indeed it did matter, he thinks that somehow a mere twenty-five or so years for murder is enough to satisfy justice.

Mr. Ackland goes on to say that

Levine's point is that there is a growing proportion of prisoners whose departure from jail should be expedited but under the current punitive penal model, which has always been the case in NSW, there is fat chance of that.

But since reward and punishment are simply justice as applied to the doers of good deeds and bad deeds respectively, it is entirely proper that the justice system’s model should be punitive and penal. Sadly though, it is questionable how widely within the present-day legal fraternity one would find assent to this basic principle of true justice; as I have noted in other posts, the utilitarian, positivist ‘restorative justice’ philosophy is very much in vogue now. Certainly one expects that there would be much in this philosophy with which Mr. Ackland and Mr. Levine, both of whom are fairly high-profile and influential jurists, would agree.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of Our Lady of Compassion, A.D. 2009

On a new call to ban the smacking of children (but first, a little flight of fancy)

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24782164-5001021,00.html
(quotations in my post taken from the print version)

An academic has called for sodomy to be made illegal, though she has stopped short of asking that it be criminalised as well:

"If the defence is removed it should be done in conjunction with an education campaign so sodomites are not left powerless,” she said.

“The aim is not to criminalise sodomy but send the message that it is not safe, effective nor morally defensible.”

A scholar calling for sodomy to banned. Could you imagine it? No, neither could I. It would mean career death, and possibly legal action against her. In fact, the quotation provided here comes from an article in last Thursday’s Sydney Daily Telegraph in which it reported on Sydney University Associate Professor Judy Cashmore’s call for the smacking of children to be banned altogether (though not criminalised), even if it’s just a simple tap; I have substituted ‘sodomites’ for ‘parents’ and ‘sodomy’ for ‘a light smack’, respectively.

These silly demands crop up from time to time, and demolishing the arguments underpinning them is like shooting fish in a barrel, but the article was interesting for a few reasons so I thought I’d have a closer look at it. The article notes that

At present smacking of children by parents is legal under the common law, as long as reasonable force is used and the sole intention is to correct behaviour.

So we see here how deeply utilitarianism pervades present-day Australian society, at least in New South Wales. Parents are forbidden to use corporal punishment purely as a punishment, mirroring the justice system’s virtual refusal to impose punishments unless it contributes to the reform of the offender, almost never as an end in itself.

Assoc. Prof. Cashmore says that

“You shouldn’t try to change people’s behaviour by hitting them. They are smaller and more vulnerable and you are teaching them to hit others. If you listen to what children say about it, some say they are really hurt by it emotionally and physically and they are very angry.”

But how exactly does this woman propose to change the behaviour of children who are too young for other forms of discipline to be effective? A raised voice might be the only alternative, but Prof. Cashmore would probably regard this as abuse too. As for the notion that smacking ‘teaches children to hit others’, that is clearly preposterous. It teaches children that legitimate authority has the right to use force against offenders. And as for being ‘really hurt by it emotionally’, I was smacked as a child but I have never woken up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, tortured by nightmares of the wooden spoon. As for the physical side, Prof. Cashmore well knows, and the article notes that,

Smacking involving force or leaving lasting physical effects is already an abuse under child protection laws.

What nonsense this woman is spouting. And keep in mind that it is people like Prof. Cashmore who are going to play a leading role in shaping the Federal Government’s human rights charter policy.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
15.XII.2008 A.D.

Dr. Falzon on justice and charity

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=5158&class=Latest%20News&subclass=CW%20National

Last Sunday’s Catholic Weekly reports that Dr. John Falzon, National Chief Executive Officer of the St. Vincent de Paul Society, has

sounded a word of warning about the need for the Federal Government to be “proactive in ensuring that people who are unemployed, or who are outside the labour market for other reasons, are provided with an adequate household income”.

“It is time to turn our backs on the outdated punitive approach to people who are in receipt of income support,” he said. “At this time when we anticipate a significant growth in unemployment, people should not be subjected to the moralistic cruelty of the breaching regime.

“Rather, let us think creatively about encouraging and enabling workforce participation.

“Let us, once and for all, repudiate the misguided notion that a vulnerable family’s meagre income should be used as a bargaining chip to coerce them into a particular behaviour.”

He added: “Neither should we allow our nation to become a place where government abrogates its responsibility by sending people to charities.

“All of the charitable organisations in Australia are doing a magnificent job.

“I would be very wary, however, of encouraging the growth of a culture that pushes people to rely on charity when, in fact, what they really need is justice.”

But given that Dr. Falzon made these comments in the context of a “significant growth in unemployment”, it is hard to see how this is a matter of justice rather than of charity. That is, since the impending rise in unemployment is cyclical rather than structural in nature, how can this be a matter of justice, when justice, as I thought Dr. Falzon would agree, involves combatting unjust structures, not unavoidable slumps in the labour market, which I would have thought calls for assistance in charity when the workers affected have failed to put aside enough money to see them through the hard times? I am no liberal, economic or otherwise, but I think we need to be careful about condemning things as failures in justice when what might really be called for is assistance in charity.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
9.XII.2008 A.D.

Fr. Harris on the death penalty

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=9899

In today’s edition of CathNews, Rev. Fr. Tim Harris, the Brisbane pastor of Messrs. Scott Rush and Michael Czugaj (two of the ‘Bali Nine’ drug runners), has protested against the death penalty, saying that it “is not the answer for drug traffickers or for the Bali bombers”. But the article provides an illustration of the confusion inherent in the so-called ‘seamless garment’ approach to life issues. The first problem is that it is the innocent who have a right to life, not those guilty of truly execrable crimes, since, as Pius XII taught, murderers forfeit their right to life by their crimes. Fr. Harris says that

"Our government needs to speak consistently on the death penalty for all," Fr Harris told AAP.

"It can't say 'Save Scott and kill the Bali bombers'.

"It is saying this and I believe is putting Scott's life in danger as a result."

Fr Harris said the Bali bombers should face a harsh punishment, but the death penalty was not the answer.

But to speak consistently means to speak consistently of apples and oranges respectively, not to toss them all into the same basket and speak of them without regard to their essential differences. Why ever can’t the Australian Government say “'Save Scott and kill the Bali bombers”, when drug running is manifestly not in the worst category of crimes, while mass murder is clearly about as bad as it gets? The South-East Asian governments tend to use the death penalty for utilitarian reasons, as a means to ends such as deterrence, when capital punishment should only ever be used as an end in itself (i.e. I am talking about capital punishment strictly so called, capital punishment qua punishment, not merely lethal defence of oneself or of others, which few doubt is licit). That is why we should protest against the way they use it, not because it is intrinsically wrong.

And given that Fr. Harris agrees that the Bali bombers ought to face a harsh punishment, how can he reject the death penalty for them, when it would be absurd to deny that there is a due relation between the crime of murder and the punishment of execution?

Furthermore, Fr. Harris says that he has “ the utmost contempt for what the Bali bombers have done but I will never lower myself to their level”. But how is the death penalty ‘lowering oneself to their level’, when the death penalty can be a just and judicious use of the State’s power over its subjects, whereas the Bali bombing was a heinous and utterly unjustified wanton taking of innocent life? If it is by the bare fact that both acts involve the taking of a human life that Fr. Harris thinks of capital punishment as ‘lowering himself to their level’, then is Father also opposed to just wars, in which one takes up arms against an enemy and thereby, superficially at least (as in the case of the death penalty), imitates the enemy?

It seems to me that the so-called ‘seamless garment approach’ that has taken hold among many Churchmen and layfolk is another example of what Prof. Amerio called a ‘loss of essences’ that has spread during the post-Vatican II years, whereby people fail to make the essential distinctions among different things, and is evident in the secular world as well, such as in the following quotation from a Ms. Helen Pitt writing in The Sydney Morning Herod’s Good Weekend magazine of October 11, 2008, on Mrs. Sarah Palin:

[Mrs. Palin's town is] a place where guns and God are treated with equal reverence; where "right to life" applies to a foetus but not to a fawn.

But just because many fail to understand the meaning of justice, retribution and the pro-life cause is no reason to pander to their ignorance. Catholics ought to stand up for the timeless Traditional teaching on the liceity of the death penalty as a just punishment.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
5.XI.2008 A.D.

A comment on restorative justice

http://cardinalpole.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-on-restorative-justice.html

Here is a comment that a made in my “More on 'restorative justice'” post:

***

Mr. Redekop and Mr. Wright,

Thank you both for your comments.

Firstly, to address your points, Mr. Redekop:

1) When I said that justice is essentially about getting what one is owed, that was not just ‘my argument’—that’s what justice is! The first problem with restorative justice is that it tries to include something in the meaning of justice that is really external to it. Given that, strictly speaking, justice is a matter of reward and punishment, it is clear that to withhold either a due reward or due punishment would be an injustice in itself. Such an injustice would be permissible according to the criterion I mentioned in the original post, namely, the injustice may be permitted if, by doing so, one expects to avert a greater evil or bring forth a greater good.

2) As to the relationship between offender and offence, the only relationship that is directly relevant is whether or not the offender was morally responsible for the offence. If the (alleged) offender were “confused, disturbed, or mistaken”, then these are clearly circumstances that excuse from culpability.

3) As to the case of murder, the amount of time that the victim might have had left to live is totally irrelevant; what matters is that his life was taken, not the quality or quantity of his life remaining. This is a most curious objection for you to raise.

4) The different circumstances that you enumerate for consideration in sentencing—whether the offender is a hardened criminal, or how wealthy he is if the penalty is to be financial—merely show that sentencing is difficult. But difficulty is no reason to abandon justice.

5) The case of a young offender is a case where I would not necessarily have a problem with imprisonment being commuted to some lesser sentence, for the reason I have mentioned already—namely, that a greater good could be procured. All I am asking is that people recognise that withholding the due punishment is, by definition, an injustice in itself.

6) You appear to hold to the ‘integral humanist’ view of the State, in which the State has a very limited role. I, however, adhere to the traditional view of the State as having the common good as its proper end, and is therefore entitled to investigate into what you call “the true virtue and happiness of all the other persons involved”.

7) This point is really the most important one: “how can a second harm make up for the first?” If one adheres to the restorative justice ideology, than retribution clearly makes no sense in itself. But justice is a metaphysical concept, not at all a utilitarian, pragmatic one. It is undeniable that, metaphysically, a second harm balances a first harm, just as a just wage metaphysically balances an hour’s work. Your example of the broken arm is completely inappropriate, since it deals with an accident, and with two harms being inflicted on the same victim.

8) Your charge that “it is clear that efforts to define the right to punish in moral terms fail to identify clearly the criteria for this right” is completely unfounded; the criterion is simply the due relation between crime and punishment.

9) Powerlessness, poverty, class structure and so on are quite secondary circumstances. The poor and powerless are still responsible moral persons, and moral responsibility is the key criterion for determining culpability.

Now Mr. Wright,

1) You say that “In restorative justice it is reparation, not rehabilitation, that trumps punishment, altough many offenders have themselves been victims”. But I have to ask then: what is your idea of reparation? Reparation means satisfaction, expiation, atonement, and so on. Punishment is an excellent form of reparation.

2) You ask: “can the state be justified in causing deliberate harm to one of its members, even a wrongdoer”? The answer is yes, of course, since this harm is due to the offender because of his transgression.

***

Reginaldvs Cantvar
All Souls’ Day, 2008 A.D.