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: Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Herald letters regarding informal voting:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/leave-it-blank-if-you-dont-like-either-candidate-20100817-128c2.html?skin=text-only

Coptic Orthodox Pope escalates (or at least continues/renews) hostilities between his Church and the Egyptian government?

In The Australian today:

Pope Shenuda III [sic--though should be II., I understand] warned Egyptian Copts - who often use the telephone to maintain contact with their local parish priest when they are abroad - that the security services were tapping calls, the independent Al Masri Al Yawm newspaper said.

Shenuda III said: "Beware not to admit your sins over the telephone, because all phone conversations are recorded by the state security services.

"Otherwise, you will have to go seek absolution in prison, from the police, rather than from your local priest."

The cleric reportedly issued the warning to hundreds of worshippers during a sermon in Alexandria on Sunday.

Copts are the Middle East's largest Christian community and make up about 10 percent of Egypt's largely Muslim population of 80 million.
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/egyptian-sinners-who-dial-a-confession-risk-prison-church-leader-warns/story-fn3dxity-1225906568093]

The article fails to make the connection to Egypt's highest court's recent ruling (see this blog's "Coptic Orthodox Church" label) that the Coptic Orthodox Church is required to have divorce and remarriage, a ruling which the C.O. Pope and C.O. Church intend to disregard. I wonder whether the C.O. Pope's warning ties in with this feud (perhaps not the best word, but you get my drift)?

Dr. Hamilton on The Greens as 'the party of moderation' (and apparently of prudence, justice, and fortitude, too)

Amusing to see Dr. Hamilton positioning The Greens as a centrist via media between 'religious extremism' and sexual libertinism (no mention in the article of abortion or euthanasia and The Greens' policies thereon, though):

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/the-party-of-moderation-steps-lightly-in-the-footsteps-of-plato/story-e6frgd0x-1225906537799

Dr. Collins on the religious and social/political views (in a word, "integralism") of Mr. Abbott and the late Mr. Santamaria

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/preview.aspx?aeid=22823

A weak article, one whose weaknesses Mr. Gerard Henderson points out here. No mention in either opinion piece, though, of the Social Kingship of Christ, which is the cornerstone of integralism in the sense in which I regard myself as an integralist.

A telling answer to an 'F.A.Q.' at the website for the re-opened programme for a Sydney Archdiocese Permanent Diaconate

(Last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly had a couple of articles which brought Sydney's Office of the Permanent Diaconate and its website to my attention.)

If a married man is ordained a deacon do he and his wife have to refrain from sexual activity?

Married deacons and their wives do not surrender any rights or responsibilities resulting from their married state of life. Marriage and orders are not incompatible sacraments; rather, there is a great mutuality between them.
[http://www.sydneydiaconate.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18&Itemid=20#sexlife]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Agapitus, Martyr, and of St. Helen, Empress, Widow, A.D. 2010

Notes: Friday, June 18, 2010

"Athanasius" on celibacy, chastity, continence, and Tradition

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2010/06/celibacy-nunc-aut-numquam.html

Blog comment by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
June 18, 2010 at 3:25 am

Wait, before you go: When you said earlier

“Thus is the Sabbath rest slapped in the face”

What did you mean by that, PE?
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/revisiting-the-summit-ii/#comment-15333]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Ephrem, Deacon, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, and of Ss. Mark and Marcellian, Martyrs, A.D. 2010

Mr. Farrelly on how to get Catholics back to the practice of the Faith

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21746

Mr. Farrelly begins thus:

For Christ's sake, will the Church please wake up!

I am not being blasphemous. I am making a prayerful plea and at the same time venting my frustration at what I have suddenly realised is perhaps the real reason seven of my eight grandchildren remain beautiful little pagans. No offence to all the other beautiful pagans out there – God made us all.

So far, so good. And I, and no doubt many others, shared the following sentiments too:

But my real frustration, my real anger, is directed at the Church and hence my opening prayer: For the sake of Christ, wake up.

Cardinals and bishops, please listen: Many of you are largely responsible for what is happening here. You are among the main reasons so many adults have stopped going to Mass and hence deciding that their children need not go to a Catholic/Christian school. You are in large part responsible for these little children remaining unbaptised and having only a secular education.

I know that you face extraordinary obstacles; I know that the you have not brought about the rampant materialism that so distracts people of all and of no faith from God and morality. But many of you seem unwilling or unable to deal with these challenges.

But then in the next paragraph the article, with which I was thitherto largely in agreement, took an ugly turn:

And to the minority of courageous bishops and cardinals who are trying to come to grips with these challenges and who know that the Church has to become more relevant to people's everyday lives, I say God bless you and thank you. And likewise to the many priests, nuns and brothers who walk the same path.

Ah, I see, so the Conciliar Church isn't 'relevant' enough for Mr. Farrelly and, according to him, lapsed Catholics. Hence:

It's long past time to accept that God made women and men equal. It's time to ask ourselves: if Jesus was standing physically among us right now, would he say women cannot be priests? Would he say priests can never marry? Would he come out of Sunday Mass feeling refreshed and stimulated by a homily that inspired and challenged him? Would he have an open mind to this suggestion: Allow single young men and women to become priests for a fixed period, say five to ten years, after which they could decide to stay on or leave to follow a different vocation.

This rightly elicited the following comment from one of the readers there:

Really? Did I miss the bit where Jesus commissioned apostles for 10 year contracts? If we're going to invoke the WhatWouldJesusDo clause, we need to be mindful of what Jesus did.

Posted By: Raphael Hythloday, West Melbourne

Basically, Mr. Farrelly and those of his ilk want the Church to follow the path of the Anglicans and the Uniting Church. But as the commenter "Barry" rightly observed,

I see no evidence of a better rate of adherence and practice in the Anglican and Uniting Churches.

Or as a commenter at Coo-ees more pungently put it (in a different discussion, but perfectly apposite here),

somnambulist said...

Brian when all the traces of catholicism are gone, especially the fancy clothes- you've got a bit of a fixation on that haven't you?- all the 86% will come flooding back to the inclusive, pro-gay, pro-divorced, pro adultery, believe anything Uniting Church type structure you wish we were. And we'll have a 100% attendance rate just like the Uniting Church has. Right.

December 01, 2008 7:33 PM

I'll finish here by dealing with a particularly perplexing comment at that CathNews article:

Margie Back is right: God has no grandchildren.
There is wholesale confusion between what Catholics call 'the faith' and the reality of Christian faith, an entirely different mode of being. It consists, as the Catholic Church teaches, in the surrender of one's whole being to Christ, True God and True Man. It is impossible to lose Christian faith once it has been given, since it requires submission of one's past, present and future to Christ Jesus.
It also means surrendering one's children and grandchildren, in fact all of one's possessions to Jesus the Christ. The faith on the other hand can be lost as soon as other cares occur.

Posted By: Alex Reichel, Oyster Bay

How odd. Usually one thinks of 'the Faith' as either the truths which God has revealed and to which we are required to assent or as the theological virtue with which one assents to those truths. One can truly have the virtue of Faith but later lose it by sinning against it, as Trent taught, but Dr. Reichel seems--and I stress seems; I don't want to make a rash judgment--to disagree. It's hard to tell, though, because having explained what he means by "the reality of Christian faith"--which would seem to correspond to 'the Faith' considered as a virtue--Dr. Reichel fails to explain what he means by "the faith", simply concluding that "[t]he faith on the other hand can be lost as soon as other cares occur". Can someone clarify this for me?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Gregory Barbarigo, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2010

On ‘social justice’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reginaldvs Cantvar