Notes: Tuesday, July 26-Monday, August 8, 2011 (part 2 of 2)

1. Dr. Feser on a review by Sir Anthony (Kenny) of the former's The Last Superstition

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/kenny-on-tls-in-tls.html

Labels: atheism, philosophy, theology

2. Yet more evidence of the Sodomites' League's success in diverting public discourse on homosexuality away from a focus on behaviour to a focus on 'identity'

From a Herald letter from one David Harris of Manly:

Fred Nile ... entered the NSW Upper House in 1980 with a single issue - to stop members of the gay community from celebrating their own identity.
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/dilemma-solved--abolish-the-upper-houses-20110801-1i8df.html?skin=text-only]

That seems inaccurate in at least two points: Mr. Nile was never a one-issue politician, and in 1980 New South Wales law did not, as far as I know, prohibit anyone "celebrating their own identity" (though it did, of course, prohibit buggery until, if I'm not mistaken, 1984, but that prohibition applied irrespective of whether the sodomite was homosexual or heterosexual and irrespective of whether the catamite was male or female, so clearly it involved discrimination neither on the basis of sex nor of sexual disorientation).

Labels: Fred Nile, G.L.B.T.

3. Fortunately, it seems that the background of one of the main participants in Ireland's planning for an attack on the Sacrament of Penance has not gone completely unnoticed there

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=414425#414425

Labels: Alan Shatter

4. Point-counterpoint in the Herald letters page:

4.1 In discussion on N.S.W. State school "ethics" classes

One Philip Cooney of Wentworth Falls wrote that

Surely it can't threaten our children to ask why there was not open access to the curriculum material prior to its introduction ...
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/little-virtue-in-labors-games-with-education-20110802-1i9si.html?skin=text-only]

I too had the impression that there was a lack of open access to the 'ethics class' material before its introduction, but then the next day a letter was published which said that

[t]he ethics course syllabus was reviewed and approved by the NSW Education Department.
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/dont-play-russian-roulette-with-our-aquifers-20110803-1ibl2.html?skin=text-only]

Did the "ethics" folks give access only to the Department, then? (I don't ask that rhetorically; does anyone know the answer?)

The day after that, Mr. Nile had a column published on the matter, in which he wrote that there are some who

wrongly believe that when Sir Henry Parkes introduced free and ''secular'' state education, he meant ''non-Christian'' or ''non-religious''. That was never his intention. In the 1880s, ''secular'' was used to prohibit denominational teaching in NSW classrooms, not scripture classes, which Parkes decreed should fill one hour per day.

But I thought that 'secular' as in 'secularist' was precisely what the likes of Parkes intended. One Keith Parsons of Newcastle affirmed my point of view in a letter published, with others, under the heading "Reason v dogma: Fred's no Socrates" here:

The only reason Sir Henry Parkes, almost 130 years ago, supported religious instruction in public schools was to get the churches that dominated school education to support the concept of a universal, free, public, secular education system.

Are any readers here knowledgeable on the motives and intentions of Australia's late-nineteenth-century proponents of 'free, compulsory, and secular' schooling (I won't say education)?

Labels: education, Henry Parkes, secularism, St James Ethics Centre

4.2 In discussion on the birth certificates of donor-conceived children

Last week the Herald gave us a reminder of the insanity of some of New South Wales's laws:

Sperm donors have no legal parental status even if they are on a birth certificate and even if they have court-ordered access visits.

But retrospective laws introduced in 2008 gave lesbian partners of women who conceive through artificial insemination legal parenting status.
[http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/keep-me-named-as-father-donor-begs-court-20110802-1i9yf.html?skin=text-only
Or alternatively:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/sperm-donor-could-lose-his-status-20110802-1i9wq.html?skin=text-only]

The coverage elicited a terse little letter, published under the heading "Donor delisting" here, from one Samantha Chung of Newtown, but the next day one Eva Elbourne of Gordon provided quite a good rejoinder (though I'm not sure that I agree with it completely), published under the heading "Donor parents must remain on record" here.

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

5. "Russia is Most Religious Nation In Europe"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38415

Labels: R.O.C., Russia

6. Mr. Verrecchio on homosexuality, narcissism, and their influence on liturgy

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38404

Labels: G.L.B.T., liturgy, narcissism

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Mary Vianney, Confessor, and of Sts. Cyriacus, Largus, and Smaragdus, Martyrs, A.D. 2011

Notes: Wednesday, July 20-Monday, July 25, 2011

1. "[In N.S.W. State school 'ethics classes', children] are now critically thinking about ethical concepts and moral issues within a secular framework", writes one of the "volunteer ethics teacher[s]"

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/even-a-child-could-work-this-one-out-mr-nile-20110719-1hncd.html?skin=text-only

Labels: education, morality, secularism, St James Ethics Centre

2. A couple of recent items regarding polyamory

2.1 Research findings on Muslim polygynous and otherwise irregular marriages

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sharia-law-at-work-in-australia/story-fn59niix-1226097889992

Labels: Islam, marriage, polyamory

2.2 Fr. Zuhlsdorf's fisking of an article on "[t]he slippery slope: from decriminalization to social acceptance"

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/the-slippery-slope-from-decriminalization-to-social-acceptance/
(It's the article itself, rather than the fisking, for which I've logged that web-page.)

Labels: G.L.B.T., marriage, polyamory

3. "The [Russian Orthodox] Moscow Patriarchate has undertaken a real campaign of expansion at home and abroad"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38209

Labels: R.O.C.

4. On planned or desired State attacks on the Sacrament of Penance

4.1 More on Ireland's planned attack on the Sacrament of Penance

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/ireland-priests-will-refuse-to-break-seal-of-confession-if-proposal-becomes-law/
(In that post's combox, good points are made by the commenters markomalley, PostCatholic, and albizzi here, here, and here, respectively.)

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38221

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=27315

Labels: Ireland, Sacraments, sexual abuse

4.2 On Sen. Xenophon's desire for Australian States to attack the Sacrament of Penance

http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-end-confessional-confidentiality-20110721-1hr0d.html?skin=text-only

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/unforgiveable-sin-confessing-to-child-abuse/

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=27331

Labels: Nick Xenophon, Sacraments, sexual abuse

5. Mr. Skinner on the U.K.'s Office for National Statistics's findings on the size of the homosexual and bisexual proportion of the population

The comment of 20.7.11 / 5pm in the combox here:

http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/07/17/pushing-agendas-ignoring-facts/

The interesting thing about those findings is that it seems that even if you count all non-answers and answers other than heterosexual/straight as 'queer' (or whatever catch-all you prefer) then that would still give a mere 5.2%.

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

6. "Obama's [latest] gay rights push"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/obamas-gay-rights-push-20110720-1houe.html?skin=text-only

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38225

Labels: Barack Obama, G.L.B.T., marriage, U.S.A.

Feast of St. James the Greater, Apostle, and of St. Christopher, Martyr, A.D. 2011

Notes: Thursday, December 2, 2010

1. Two more articles on 'gay marriage'

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/gillard-tries-to-extinguish-factions-nuclear-push-20101201-18grm.html?skin=text-only
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-handful-of-seats-dictating-the-political-agenda/

2. "Moscow warns of arms race unless NATO does deal on missile shield"

http://www.smh.com.au/world/moscow-warns-of-arms-race-unless-nato-does-deal-on-missile-shield-20101201-18gp8.html?skin=text-only

3. Mr. Hutt on the St James Ethics Centre and its State-school ethics classes

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/whos-teaching-the-ethics-teachers-getting-their-ethics/

4. Cardinal Bertone on religious liberty

I would be interested to learn what the ellipsis in the third paragraph replaced:

CARDINAL BERTONE ADDRESSES OSCE SUMMIT IN KAZAKHSTAN

VATICAN CITY, 1 DEC 2010 (VIS) - Made public today was the address delivered by Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone S.D.B. before the summit meeting of heads of State and government of the fifty-six members of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), being held in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 1 and 2 December.

Cardinal Bertone affirmed that the Holy See "does not cease to reiterate that the aim of States should be to protect and respect that human dignity which unites the entire human family. This unity is rooted in four fundamental principles: the centrality of the human person, of solidarity, of subsidiarity and of the common good. These principles harmonise well with the overall concept of security, which is the foundation of our organisation, and are a constant reminder which the political community must bear in mind".

"The CSCE and the OSCE have always had the promotion and protection of human rights in their respective agendas", said Cardinal Bertone. "These fundamental freedoms include the right to religious freedom. ... Developments of recent years and the progress made in drafting the various texts adopted by the OSCE show, with increasingly clarity, that religious freedom can exist in different social systems".

"Closely related to the denial of religious freedom is religiously-motivated intolerance and discrimination, especially against Christians. It is well documented that Christians are the most discriminated and persecuted religious group. Over 200 million of them, belonging to different denominations, live in difficult conditions because of legal and cultural structures".

[...] Finally the cardinal underlined the ongoing validity of the "ten principles" of the Helsinki Conference, stressing that "the commitments agreed by the OSCE are strong and noble. They are supported by a robust mandate and by the principle of consent. The Holy See reaffirms these commitments and encourages the organisation to stand firm on them".
SS/ VIS 20101201 (420)

5. More from Prof. Altman on gay strategy: The nexus between 'gay rights' and 'multiculturalism'

On several occasions, Mr. Muehlenberg has quoted at his blog the following observation by Australian 'gay rights' activist Prof. Dennis Altman:

The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens rather than attacking specific and (as they see it) antisocial behavior.
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/05/01/on-relationship-recognition/]

In a book review in late 2008, Prof. Altman elaborated a little, in passing, on how that "shift" occurred successfully:

Sharman was of the generation [the person to whom Prof. Altman refers "[grew] up gay in the '50s"] that saw homosexuality move from a hidden and illegal activity to a social movement and now as yet another identity within multicultural Australia. He stood aside from gay politics and his autobiography rarely mentions the political explicitly. Yet his work has always been of political significance in the broader sense and Blood and Tinsel reminds us how much of his work helped us reimagine sexuality and gender.
[my emphasis,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/anna-bemrose-robert-helpmann-a-servant-of-art/story-e6frg8no-1111118266435]

Interesting the way in which the rise of the Sodomites' League ties in with 'multiculturalism'.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bibiana, Virgin, Martyr, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Monday, October 16-25, 2010 (part 1 of 2)

1. Some recent media items on abortion

1.1 "Abortion legalised [in Queensland] by pair's acquittal"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/abortion-legalised-by-pairs-acquittal/story-e6frg97x-1225939895811

1.2 "Anti-abortion while remaining firmly pro-choice"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/anti-abortion-while-remaining-firmly-pro-choice/story-e6frg6zo-1225939077008

1.3 A little snapshot from Australia's abortion culture

From time to time one hears reported that some certain huge proportion of women will have an abortion at some point in their respective lives or that some similarly huge proportion of pregnancies will end in abortion, but such figures, appalling yet abstract and impersonal as they are, perhaps don't sink in in such a way as for us to understand the culture of abortion which they involve (and perpetuate). The following paragraph in a recent news/opinion article helps to 'personalise' one's understanding of Australia's squalid but widespread abortion culture:

[Tegan Leach] turned to boyfriend Sergie Brennan, now 23. They agreed to abort. Together they told their parents. Both had sisters who’d been through a suction curette and told them, if a little bluntly, “it gets sucked out and scraped out’’.
[http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/this-abortion-trial-should-never-be-repeated/]

1.4 Mr. Schütz contra Ms O'Brien on abortion

A mostly good fisking of some pro-abortion nonsense published in the Melbourne Herald Sun:

http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/truth-is-dispensible-if-it-makes-you-feel-guilty/

1.5 Dr. Durie (Anglican minister) on late-term abortions in Victoria

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34355

2. Msgr. Fellay on, among other things, Vatican policy on the S.S.P.X as a policy of "contradictions"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34323http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34323

See also

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34360

3. Interesting series of items in the Herald regarding Catholic womenpriests

The first was a letter published, with other letters, under the heading "Lapses - and laps - of Catholic faith":

I think many Catholics saw the irony of the Mary MacKillop celebrations in a church in which women are still excluded from full participation. As I said at Mass last Sunday: "Today we celebrate a woman's canonisation; hopefully it won't be too long before we celebrate a woman's ordination."

Father John CrothersSt Declan's Church, Penshurst
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/settlement-of-djs-case-doesnt-ease-the-tension-20101019-16sfb.html?skin=text-only]

Then came a response published, with other letters, under the heading "Where science meets miracles" the next day:

Father John Crothers (Letters, October 20) will rejoice if women are ordained priests. Frankly I will celebrate when, as a Catholic priest ought, he upholds definitive Catholic teaching on non-ordination of women, instead of encouraging dissent and scandalous confusion.

Father John George Randwick
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/ten-more-years-floundering-in-afghanistan-20101020-16u65.html?skin=text-only]

The day after that came two (or three) more letters, published, with one other, unrelated letter, under the heading "Grassroots Catholics ready for change":

Thank you, Father John George (Letters, October 21), for reminding me how fortunate I am to be a parishioner of St Declan's, Penshurst. Father John Crothers understands we can think for ourselves and, far from encouraging dissent, I expect he reflects the views of most Catholics in the universal church, practising and non-practising. That is why his church is packed every Sunday, many people travelling from other parishes because their own parish priests express views such as those of Father George.

Mary Lawson Mortdale

No good deed goes unpunished, it seems. According to Father John George, Father John Crothers, by advocating the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, is spreading ''dissent and scandalous confusion''. Some said Our Lord spread a bit of dissent in his time, too.

Hugh Sturgess Balmain

Apparently it is not just atheists who find diversity of opinion discomforting. The letters page is full of Christians who seem to find diversity of opinion among other Christians discomforting. Maybe we all need to be a bit more relaxed about what other people believe.

Robin Herbert Hornsby
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/absence-reveals-leaders-contempt-for-debate-20101021-16vwc.html?skin=text-only]

On the same day, the Herald also published an opinion piece, brought to my attention by a post by Terra, by Dr. Laura Beth Bugg:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/catholic-women-need-to-challenge-hierarchy-for-good-of-the-church-20101021-16vxh.html?skin=text-only

Interesting how the Herald has facilitated the debate.

4. New tactic for ethics classes advocates to neutralise opposition

[...] The Australian Christian Lobby called for more consultation with the government following Ms Firth's announcement.

Its NSW director, David Hutt, said nothing in the report allayed fears of church groups that having ethics classes at the same time as scripture classes would mean that scripture students ''will be forced to forgo ethics teaching''.

However, Ms Firth said ethics course material would be made available to scripture teachers.

Simon Longstaff, the executive director of the St James Ethics Centre, which ran the trial, said providing the material would ''help ensure that no child is drawn away from scripture simply to explore material provided in the ethics course''.
[my emphasis,
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/lock-in-ethics-classes-say-greens-20101020-16ud8.html?skin=text-only]

Quite clever, from a P.R. perspective, but it still fails to invalidate the (in my opinion cleverer, again from a P.R. perspective) objection of ethics class opponents that pupils and their respective parents will be forced to choose between S.R.E. and the ethics classes, because the same trade-off between S.R.E. content or ethics class content remains.

5. Latest figures on Australian popular support for so-called gay marriage

MORE than three-quarters of Australians support a conscience vote on same-sex marriage and an increased majority want gay and lesbian couples to be able to marry.

Findings from a new poll of 1050 respondents came as the independent MP Andrew Wilkie called on the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to move on the issue, saying she was ''out of step with the people''.

[...] The Galaxy poll showed support for same-sex marriage increased from 60 per cent of respondents in 2009 to 62 per cent this year.

The survey, which was conducted over two days earlier this month, showed uniform support for a conscience vote across party lines with 80 per cent of Labor and 75 per cent of Liberal voters agreeing to the idea.

While supporting a conscience vote, Liberal voters were much less likely to agree to allow same-sex couples to marry, with less than half supporting the change. Nearly three-quarters of Labor voters and four out of five Greens voters support same-sex marriage.

The survey also shows that younger Australians are more likely (80 per cent) to support same-sex marriage than those aged over 50 years (46 per cent). [...]
[http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/pm-should-let-the-people-vote-on-gay-marriage-20101022-16xx8.html?from=watoday_ft?skin=text-only]

6. Impending naming-and-shaming of insufficiently pro-G.L.B.T. businesses by a new initiative of the Sodomites' League

One can't even read the careers section of a newspaper these days without finding gay propaganda. An article on page three in the public sector section of The Weekend Australian's "Weekend Professional" supplement last Saturday entitled "'Homophobia keeps employees in closet'" (apparently not available on-line) brought an interesting new initiative to the attention of readers:

The Pride in Diversity program was created by community-based LGBT health and HIV/AIDS group ACON , in partnership with Diversity Council Australia and Stonewall, a London-based LGBT advocacy group. Since being launched in February, a broad range of employers have signed up as foundation members, including the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Defence, Telstra, KPMG and IBM.

So KPMG goes LGBT. A double serving of alphabet soup.

[...] Pride in Diversity will launch the first workplace equality index in November, whereby employers will be able to measure how inclusive their workplace is of LGBT staff.

Something to look forward to.

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria, Martyrs, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Monday, September 25-27, 2010

A letter in The Australian on contraception

When I read His Eminence The Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney's opinion piece in last Saturday's edition of The Weekend Australian I feared that there would be a flood of anti-Pell, pro-Pill letters, but The Australian has so far published only one letter on the topic, and I was pleased that it was supportive of His Eminence:

THERE will be any number of reasons submitted as to why Cardinal Pell is wrong to reject the pill ("The relationships market after 50 years of the pill", Commentary, 25-26/9) but they could be boiled down to one: argue as you will but don't deprive us of the pleasure of easy sex.

As to the argument that celibate priests know nothing about sexual relationships, it can fairly be stated that a Catholic priest learns more via the confessional in one year than the average person learns in a lifetime.

Bob Denahy, Holbrook, NSW
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pell-and-the-pill/story-fn558imw-1225929688887]

Leo XIII. on Christendom, social unity in the Faith, and union of Church and State

In an AQ thread on the Eastern Schism, someone posted Leo XIII.'s Apostolic Letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, some of whose excerpts are also worth highlighting for their reiteration of some points of Traditional socio-political doctrine:

Nothing is more foreign to her disposition than to encroach on the rights of civil power; but the civil power in its turn must respect the rights of the Church, and beware of arrogating them in any degree to itself. Now, what is the ruling spirit of the times when actual events and circumstances are taken into account? No other than this: it has been the fashion to regard the Church with suspicion, to despise and hate and spitefully calumniate her; and, more intolerable still, men strive with might and main to bring her under the sway of civil governments. Hence it is that her property has been plundered and her liberty curtailed: hence again, that the training of her Priesthood has been beset with difficulties; that laws of exceptional rigor have been passed against her Clergy; that Religious Orders, those excellent safeguards of Christianity, have been suppressed and placed under a ban; in a word, the principles and practice of the regalists have been renewed with increased virulence.

Such a policy is a violation of the most Sacred Rights of the Church, and it breeds enormous evils to States, for the very reason that it is in open conflict with the Purposes of God. When God, in His most Wise Providence, placed over human society both temporal and Spiritual Authority, He intended them to remain distinct indeed, but by no means disconnected and at war with each other. On the contrary, both the Will of God and the common weal of human society imperatively require that the civil power should be in accord with the Ecclesiastical in its Rule and Administration.

Hence the State has its own peculiar rights and duties, the Church likewise has hers; but it is necessary that each should be united with the other in the bonds of concord. Thus will it come about that the close mutual relations of Church and State will be freed from the present turmoil, which for manifold reasons is ill-advised and most distressing to all well-disposed persons; furthermore, it will be brought to pass that, without confusion or separation of the peculiar interests of each, the people will render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

[...] As regards the political question, which aims at reconciling liberty with Authority--two things which many confound in theory, and separate too widely in practice--most efficient aid may be derived from the Christian Philosophy. For, when this point has been settled and recognized by common agreement, that, whatsoever the form of government, the Authority is from God, reason at once perceives that in some there is a Legitimate right to command, in others the corresponding duty to obey, and that without prejudice to their dignity, since obedience is rendered to God rather than to man; and God has denounced the most rigorous judgment against those in Authority, if they fail to represent Him with uprightness and justice. Then the liberty of the individual can afford ground of suspicion or envy to no one; since, without injury to any, his conduct will be guided by Truth and rectitude and whatever is allied to public order. Lastly, if it be considered what influence is possessed by the Church, the mother of and peacemaker between rulers and peoples, whose mission it is to help them both with her Authority and Counsel, then it will be most manifest how much it concerns the commonweal that all nations should resolve to unite in the same belief and the same profession of the Christian Faith.
[http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=381274#381274]

With that in mind I was dismayed to read this comment by a confused individual at Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog.

Mr. Farr on Sen. Brown's (changing) priorities

I was interested to read the following in Mr. Malcolm Farr's column in the Sydney Daily Telegraph last Friday:

Expectations of loopy legislative rants by the Greens, and of instability caused by them, will be disappointed.

Personally [Sen. Bob Brown] strongly opposes what he calls discrimination against same-sex marriage but as leader of the third-biggest voting bloc in Parliament he won’t attempt to end it by legislation.
[http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/malcolmfarr/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/no_loopy_reform_rants_in_a_green_balancing_act/]

So let me get this straight: Dr. Brown went into the election with, if I'm not mistaken, so-called gay marriage, but not euthanasia, among his stated priorities, but now he's given up on the former but is pursuing, in effect, the latter?

More from Mr. Muehlenberg on euthanasia

A couple of excerpts:

And the argument for a right to suicide is a very strange argument indeed. A person seeks to use his autonomy to end his autonomy! Suicide thus means the end of personal autonomy. It seems to be the ultimate oxymoron to speak about the choice to rob oneself of choice. As Leon Kass points out, “In the name of choice, people claim the right to choose to cease to be choosing beings.”

Or as Arthur Dyck asks, “how can suicide be considered a right, when the freedom to undertake it puts an end to all possibilities to act, to freedom and life, and hence is an act that abolishes these basic rights?” So much for choice and autonomy.

And as J.P. Moreland says, “Suicide is also a self-refuting act, for it is an act of freedom that destroys future acts of freedom; it is an affirmation of being that negates being; it serves a human good (e.g., a painless state) but, as a means to that end, violates other, more basic human goods (e.g., life itself).”
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/26/euthanasia-choice-and-autonomy/]

Also, it is a very strange kind of compassion which says that the way to relieve suffering is to kill the sufferer. We should be concentrating on removing the suffering, not the sufferer. That is why the many advances in palliative care and the treatment of pain are so important: it really is quite unnecessary to argue for the legalised killing of patients, even if done in the name of compassion.
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/09/24/euthanasia-and-compassion/]

"Athanasius" on the 'death-bringing' Old Law

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2010/09/margaritas-ante-porcos.html

Athanasius citing Johannes Baptist Franzelin:

... On the other hand, the doctrine and practice of the Quattordecimans are of a different species altogether, for they contended that Christians were required to keep both the rite and time of Jewish celebration from the Mosaic law, which is the error of the Ebionites. Thus it was no longer a matter of simply apostolic tradition, but of Divine Apostolic tradition, as it stands the rights, laws and types after their fulfillment through Christ the anti-type are dead and, the gospel being sufficiently promulgated, are also death bringing (mortiferos esse). -De Traditione, Thesis I

Athanasius in his own words:

Moreover, Christ revealed exactly Who God is, by the Divine economy He established by which His preaching was entrusted in toto to the Apostles and passed down to us. When the Jews deny the incarnation or the distinctions within God of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, after this revelation has been made they are no longer worshiping the same God. ...

Mr. Hennessy on the withholding of information about the trialled ethics classes

In yesterday's Sydney Catholic Weekly, Mr. Jude Hennessy, director of the Confraternity for Christian Doctrine from The Diocese of Wollongong, was quoted thus:

“Like Mr O’Farrell, we have concerns about the process that first led to the implementation of the ethics classes and subsequently the review. In the first instance, the schools that volunteered their own involvement in the trial, have also written their own report card for Dr Knight.

“Anyone else who wanted to get access to the lessons were unable to do so, and in fact we are still awaiting access to eight of the 10 lessons under Freedom of Information requests.

“Certainly, we regarded it as strange that review process was formulated after the conclusion of the trial, and then not properly communicated to stakeholders.”
[http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/print.php?articleID=7366&class=Latest%20News&subclass=CW%20National]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of Sts. Cosmas and Damian, Martyrs, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, September 11-14, 2010

Interesting article on Islamic 'Church'-(Super)State doctrine as expressed in an Islamist party's manifesto

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/osamas-one-size-fits-all-islamism/story-e6frg6zo-1225917045865

Interesting to read Ms Neighbour's article while keeping in mind the corresponding Traditional Catholic (i.e. true) socio-political doctrines. There is much in that article which would (or I suppose should) be unobjectionable to a Catholic*. Two key points of disagreement are, however, the Islamist lack of a distinction between the State and the Islamic counterpart to the Church (the true and Catholic doctrine is that there is a distinction but, ideally, not a separation between Church and State) and the apparent Islamic imperative for all the Islamic Confessional States to unite into the one Super-State (in the true and Catholic doctrine there is no imperative for Catholic Confessional States to unite into the one State; on the contrary, it would seem preferable that there would be no 'Universal State' to rival the Universal Church, though of course this would be no problem in the Islamist schema since, as I said, in it 'Church' and State aren't even distinct from each other).

*This should come as no surprise, since in the following syllogism:

Men not just in societies, but also as societies, must profess the true religion.
Islam is the true religion.
Therefore men not just in societies but also as societies must profess Islam.

the conclusion, which is perhaps the core principle of Islamism insofar as it is a body of socio-political doctrine, is false not because of the form of the argument or because of its major premise but because of the minor premise.

"Vocations Crusade for Holy Cross Seminary, Australia"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33487

An AQ comment on some inadequacies in The Archdiocese's of Melbourne's "Guidelines for Catholic Funerals"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=379206#379206

Transcript of Compass episode "Schools of Thought" on ethics classes

http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2968581.htm

Interesting CathNews 'blog' which reminds us that any State will have public religious, or at least quasi-religious, rites

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23216

The relevant excerpt:

Why do we give more solemnity to the public rites of the nation, rather than the public rites of the Church? This has to do with a movement of the sacred from Christianity to the nation; where public rules and rituals are associated with the nation while private wants and tastes apply to everything else, including “religion”.

There will always be a State religion; it's just a question of whether that religion will be the true one or a false one.

Interesting books reviewed/mentioned in the weekend papers:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/ax-and-oath-life-in-the-middle-ages/story-e6frg8nf-1225915905792
"The Axe and the Oath: Ordinary Life in the Middle Ages
"By Robert Fossier
"Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane
"Princeton University Press, 400pp, $64"

Mentioned on page five of the News Review section of The Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday:

"People Power: The History and Future of the Referendum in Australia by George Williams and David Hume (UNSW Press, $34.95)"

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, A.D. 2010

Notes: Tuesday, May 11, 2010

(This first edition of Notes covers last Saturday to today, inclusive of both.) [Update, Tuesday, May 11, 2010, approx. 0400 hrs.: After posting this, I noticed that I had forgotten that I had opened the Blogger "New Post" screen on Monday (but didn't hit "PUBLISH POST" till Tuesday), so when I wrote that "This first edition of Notes covers last Saturday to today", by "today" I mean Tuesday, not Monday, as one might have inferred from the day and date given at the top of this post.]

Mr. Gittins on the Henry Review

http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-much-stick-to-give-jobless-20100507-ujkx.html

I was disappointed but unsurprised to see, in The Daily Telegraph's recommendation-by-recommendation summary of the Henry Review last week, that one of the Review's recommendations was for the individual, rather than the family, to remain the basic unit for taxation. But perhaps this isn't such a bad thing, given that the Review's aim seems to be to make two-income families even better off relative to one-income families:

Now, it's clear from all the references to the ''tax and transfer system'' that one of the major goals of the review was to fully integrate the two systems - make them fit together better. That the two systems don't fit well can be seen from our frequent wrestling with the problem of high ''effective marginal tax rates''. Say a mother working full-time is considering moving to a tougher, higher-paying job. On each extra dollar she earns she would lose 31.5¢ in income tax. But she may also lose 30¢ in family benefit. If so, her marginal tax rate is, effectively, 61.5¢ in the dollar - well above the top tax rate of 46.5¢ and quite a disincentive.

It's clear the hope in getting the Henry review to look at the tax and transfer system was for it to find a comprehensive fix to the effective marginal tax problem.

But here's the scoop: it couldn't do it. After much effort it decided the two systems just couldn't be integrated. The problem is created by our love of means-testing, but is compounded because income tax is levied on the individual, whereas eligibility for transfer payments is based on the joint income of couples.

Its best suggestion was that the separate means tests for part A and part B of the family benefit be combined, with a single ''withdrawal rate'' of only 15¢ to 20¢ for each extra dollar of income earned.

(And here's another interesting figure from Mr. Gittins's article: "For every dollar the federal government gets in, more than 25¢ goes out in transfers.")

Ms Summers on fifty years of the Pill

http://www.smh.com.au/national/little-pill-that-changed-the-world-20100507-ujo8.html

Obviously I disagree with her on the liceity of contraception, but the article gives an insight into how the other side thinks.

Ms Smith on the N.S.W. State school ethics course

Here's a letter from yesterday's Herald:

Trial celebrates choice and parental responsibility

Date: May 10 2010

[...]

So what is the take-home lesson from the decimation of scripture classes by the ethics-course trial that Anglicans had predicted?

It's not a judgment on the quality of SRE classes, because it was parents who made the choice, without attending SRE classes or the trial classes. It's not a judgment on the quality of SRE teachers, because the ethics course teachers are simply civic-hearted volunteers like those SRE teachers who do not have theological or teaching qualifications (as many do). And it's not a judgment on the relative value of religion or ethics.

The take-home lesson is that the implementation of the ethics course created an ethical dilemma, which was the need to choose between ethics and religion when that choice should not have been necessary. The timetable slot is for SRE.

If the ethics course is not SRE, it should not be scheduled then and parents would not be forced to choose between a (heavily promoted) ethics course and religious education.

Claire Smith Roseville
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/trial-celebrates-choice-and-parental-responsibility-20100509-ullk.html?skin=text-only]

And here's one from today's Herald:

All views count in schools blessed with tolerance

Date: May 11 2010

[...]

Claire Smith (Letters, May 10) is wrong. As a parent I am well aware of what goes in at an SRE class.

Over the years I've had to explain to my daughter that my wife and I will not end up burning in hell. I patiently had to explain the cultural difference between angels and fairies. I had to explain that the leaflet she had been told to bring home, which gave ''10 reasons why we know the Bible is true'', had no foundation in fact, that at best the evidence for the ''reasons'' given were dubious at best and outright lies at worst. So I do know what SRE is about. It is not about ethics; it is not about learning how religion has shaped our culture; it is definitely not learning about the life and nature of Jesus Christ. It is an attempt by the church to indoctrinate children, in the hope that it will put a few more bums on seats to bolster its falling numbers. And the reality is it doesn't work.

As for ''parents been forced to choose'', this too is a lie. Many parents have wanted for a long time an ethics and critical thinking alternative to SRE, preferably taught by trained teachers as opposed to ''civic hearted'' volunteers. Well, finally, some parents have a choice for their children, and the church is bleating.

Paul Gittings Russell Lea
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/all-views-count-in-schools-blessed-with-tolerance-20100510-uojd.html?skin=text-only]

So "[m]any parents have wanted for a long time an ethics and critical thinking alternative to SRE". Now you might be aware that not just the Catholic Church and the Protestant sects are opposed to the ethics course trial, but so too is the Teacher's Federation, not because it subscribes to the content taught in Scripture classes, but because separate ethics classes would imply that pupils receive inadequate ethical formation from teachers. But Mr. Gittings and, apparently, "[m]any [other] parents" think that State school teachers don't even give pupils adequate instruction in critical thinking!

Mr. van Onselen on the porosity of Mr. Turnbull

As will the perception, if not the reality, of being indiscreet ["need to be remedied"]. Turnbull described himself on the ABC's Australian Story last year as "the soul of indiscretion". After his arrival in John Howard's cabinet, it started to leak. After he lost the leadership showdown with Brendan Nelson following the 2007 election defeat, Nelson quickly started to be undermined. When Abbott defeated Turnbull for the leadership last December, a private conversation between Turnbull and Julie Bishop in which she allegedly bagged Abbott leaked.

At one level skulduggery is expected in politics, but practitioners need to be discreet. Turnbull would do well to steer clear of low-grade political manoeuvring. Apart from anything else, he isn't much good at it.
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/turnbulls-presence-looms-large-on-political-horizon/story-e6frg6zo-1225863814373]

Msgr. Fellay's latest Letter to Friends and Benefactors

http://www.dici.org/en/?p=4652

You might also want to check out the discussions on the Letter at angelqueen.org/forum and wdtprs.com/blog (at the latter, the comment by moon1234 — 8 May 2010 @ 4:10 am provides a useful recap on the status of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings).

Fr. Aidan (Nichols O.P.) and Mrs. Doorly on the Second Vatican Council and ecumenism

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31518

Ms Hogan on accusations of heresy

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21089

See also here and here for comment, by Terra and Mr. Schütz, respectively, about Ms Hogan's blog post. Someone ought to put Ms Hogan in her place and simply quote Fr. Küng on, say, the dogma of Papal infallibility.

Dr. Brown on St. Thomas Aquinas's doctrine on God as First Cause

Here's a fascinating comment by Dr. Robert Brown, a regular commenter at wdtprs.com/blog:

[... Dr. Brown] would not agree that St Thomas was working from the notion of a created world. His arguments move via abstraction from sensible knowledge to metaphysical knowledge. From the fact that the limited being that comprises all material existence needs a cause (and that an infinite chain of essential causes is impossible), he arrives at the knowledge of the existence of the First Cause, Whom we call God.

The very fact of limited being means that it must have been created, and so there is nothing a priori about his concept of a created world.

[...]

Comment by robtbrown — 7 May 2010 @ 11:41 pm
[http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/05/whats-wrong-with-this-cogito-ergo-sum-thus-if-i-think-i-am-reverent-i-am/#comment-203647]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of Ss. Philip and James, Apostles, A.D. 2010