Notes: Tuesday, August 9-Tuesday, August 16, 2011 (part 1 of 2)

1. Dr. Sudlow on an essay which, according to him, "reframes the problem [of whether Dignitatis humanæ is in continuity with pre-Conciliar teaching] completely"

http://thesensiblebond.blogspot.com/2011/08/coercion-and-liberty-reframing-debate.html

The core of this 'reframing' seems to be, in Dr. Sudlow's reading, as follows:

the Church has only dogmatically asserted its power of coercion over the baptised, and any State which acts as the civil arm to help the Church in this matter does so by delegation of the Church and NOT by its own power.

The problem with that, and the reason for which I disagree that it is "game-changing", is that although the State does indeed exercise coercive power over the Baptised in matters of religion by delegation of the Church, nevertheless, the State is competent to act by its own power when it seeks to repress offences against the Catholic religion; trying to make someone do what he does not want to do (coercion) is quite different to preventing him from doing what he wants to do.

Labels: Church and State, Dignitatis Humanæ, morality, religious liberty, theology, Thomas Pink

2. A Herald letter which corrects misconceptions about religious exemptions from taxation

Under the heading "Churches do pay" here:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/show-some-humanity-and-let-them-remain-20110808-1ijd4.html?skin=text-only

Labels: taxation

3. "Report finds boys exhibit behavioural problems earlier than girls"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/report-finds-boys-exhibit-behavioural-problems-earlier-than-girls/story-fn59niix-1226111957815

Labels: gender differences

4. A couple of recent comments from Dr. Brown

4.1 On the Eucharist as memorial

Mainly his third point here:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/on-the-matter-of-ad-orientem-worship/#comment-288650

Labels: liturgy

4.2 A joke

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/08/waiting-for-zagano/#comment-288765

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

5. Mr. Brent on voting turnout

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/turnout_schmurnout/

Labels: voting

6. An attempted defence of sodomite-catamite 'parenting' which (defence) backfires

From a letter to the Herald last week:

Maurie Stack and Martin Bell (Letters, August 11) should not assume that two lesbians raising children are depriving those children of a relationship with their biological father.

[...] [The Lesbian letter-writer's children] also know who their donor father is and we have always fostered contact and a relationship with him. We are not alone in this family model.
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/love-not-biology-determines-good-parenting-20110811-1iorr.html?skin=text-only]

The problem with this line of argument is that once they acknowledge that contact and a relationship with the biological father is a good thing, one has to ask them Why do you deprive the children of the best form of contact and relationship, which is that in which the biological father lives with his children? I suppose that defenders of depriving children of this good would try to deflect the argument by pointing out that it is not just Lesbian households in which the biological father does not live with the children. This attempted evasion is answered by pointing out that fathers who legitimately live away from their respective families do so for some greater good, e.g. in the case of overseas military service, whereas Lesbian couples do so for an evil, namely, the indulgence of their disordered preferences. (And as for fathers who illegitmately live away from their respective families, one need only point out that two wrongs don't make a right.)

(And of course, the same goes, mutatis mutandis, for Gay 'co-parents' whose children have only intermittent contact with their respective biological mothers.)

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

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Joachim, Confessor, A.D. 2011

Notes: Friday, October 8, 2010

Interesting Herald article on marriage annulment law in Australia (and, historically, in Britain)

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/till-debt-us-do-part-case-dismissed-20101007-169px.html?skin=text-only

Mr. Macintosh on voting

A letter in today's Herald:

Arguments aplenty to feed intellectually hungry

Date: October 08 2010

[...] In her excellent article Elizabeth Farrelly suggests that voting should be not just a duty but ''a privilege, earnable by demonstrating some semblance of knowledge''.

This reminded me of Neville Shute's novel In The Wet, in which he imagined that Australia at some time in the future had adopted a multiple voting system, with everyone able to have up to seven votes, based on educational attainment and achievement.

This led to a flowering of achievement here, whereas Britain had stagnated under the single-vote-for-all system.

It would offend against our so-called egalitarianism, but perhaps it is an idea whose time has come.

Andrew Macintosh Queenscliff
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/arguments-aplenty-to-feed-intellectually-hungry-20101007-169oy.html?skin=text-only]

I seem to recall that John Stuart Mill (a Liberal, of course) suggested giving university graduates an additional vote.

"Moscow [Russian Orthodox] patriarchate criticizes Nobel Prize award for in-vitro pioneer"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34066

Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the origin of the Novus Ordo Missæ's 'Preparation of the Gifts' formula

Frankly, this sort of thing [celebrants changing the 'Preparation of the Gifts' formula] comes from the – in my opinion – ill-considered change to the offertory prayers for the Novus Ordo. This would be impossible to do in the older, traditional form of Mass, since the two offertory prayers are quite different and actually Catholic in their origin. The two new offertory prayers – which are Jewish berakha in origin – are so similar as to nearly invite this sort of editing when the less than careful priest has one of these flashes of brilliant insight as to how he can make improvements.
[My interpolation, italics in the original,
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/10/quaeritur-priest-changes-the-words-of-the-offertory/]

Now a true ritual sacrifice has three 'stages' (I'm not sure that that's the best word but it'll do): Oblation, consecration, and consummation. So Father is acknowledging in his post that the New Mass basically 1. gets rid of one of the parts of a true ritual sacrifice and 2. replaces it with Jewish (i.e. Talmudic, i.e. not just non-Catholic, but anti-Catholic) table blessings, and yet he continues not just to approve of, but even celebrate, this evil (since evil is a deprivation of the due good, and 1. and 2. clearly involve such a lack) rite? Incredible.

Mr. Christopherson on marriage

A commenter at Mr. Muehlenberg's blog wrote the following:

... The holy scriptures give three valid reasons for the end of a marriage. Death of one of the partners, adultery which was punishable by death under the Old Covenant effectively declaring the erring partner dead to the marriage, and permanent abandonment. ...
[http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/07/christians-living-like-pagans/]

Where does it say that in Scripture? If he's referring to the provisions of the Old Law, then clearly that is not a valid basis for his argument, since the Old Law has been abolished. And under the New Law, only the Pope can dissolve the natural contract of marriage (and no-one can dissolve the Sacrament of Marriage).

H.H. The Pope on Church-State relations and public morality

An item in today's Vatican Information Service daily e-mail bulletin:

REAPPRAISING THE SPIRITUAL AND HUMAN HERITAGE OF CHILE

VATICAN CITY, 7 OCT 2010 (VIS) - Benedict XVI today received the Letters of Credence of Fernando Zegers Santa Cruz, the new ambassador of Chile to the Holy See. He began his address to the diplomat by expressing his closeness to the Chilean people following February's earthquake, and he recalled "the immense efforts being made by the Chilean Catholic Church, many of whose communities were also badly affected by the quake, to help people most in need. ... Nor can I forget", he continued, "the miners of the Atacama region and their loved ones, for whom I continue to pray fervently".

Going on then to observe that the new ambassador is beginning his mission in the year in which Chile celebrates the bicentenary of its independence, the Pope said: "Many are the fruits the Gospel has produced in that blessed land: abundant fruits of sanctity, charity, human promotion, and of constant striving for peace and coexistence". In this context he also recalled last year's celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Argentina which, "with pontifical mediation, put an end to that dispute in the southern hemisphere", he said.

"That historical agreement", the Holy Father proceeded, "will remain for future generations as a shining example of the immense benefits that peace brings, and of the importance of preserving and encouraging the moral and religious values that constitute the most intimate fabric of a people's soul. We cannot hope to explain the triumph of this longing for peace, harmony and understanding without bearing in mind how deep the seed of the Gospel has taken root in the hearts of Chileans".

"It is very important, and even more so in present circumstances in which so many challenges threaten cultural identity, to encourage, especially among the young, a healthy pride and a renewed appreciation and reappraisal for their faith, history, culture, traditions and artistic heritage, and for everything that constitutes the best and richest spiritual and human patrimony of Chile".

At this point Benedict XVI also noted how, "although Church and State are independent and autonomous, each in its own field, they are both called to loyal and respectful collaboration in order to serve the personal and social vocation of the same people. In carrying out her specific mission to announce the good news of Jesus Christ, the Church seeks to respond to man's expectations and doubts, while at the same time drawing on those ethical and anthropological values and principles which are inscribed in the nature of human beings".

"When the Church raises her voice on the great challenges and problems of the present time - such as wars, hunger, widespread extreme poverty, the defence of human life from conception until natural end, or the promotion of the family founded on marriage between a man and woman, primary educator of children - she is not acting out of special interest or of principles perceptible only to people who profess a particular religious faith. Respecting the rules of democratic coexistence, the Church does this for the good of all society, and in the name of values that everyone can share", the Holy Father concluded.
CD/ VIS 20101007 (540)

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Bridget of Sweden, Widow, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, September 30, 2010

An interesting fact about the application of the Statute of Westminster to Australia

Second paragraph of this letter in today's Herald:

It took a while …

Lewis Hewertson (Letters, September 29) fails to see how Australians could be compelled to fight ''for England'', since Australia received self-governance in 1901. This overlooks the fact that Australia's foreign policy (and that of Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) was controlled and directed by London by law.

The Statute of Westminster of 1931 awarded full independence to the British dominions, including in foreign policy, but the Australian government of the day did not ratify it.

Robert Menzies, declaring war on Germany in 1939, stated that Australia was at war because Britain was, ipso facto. The statute was only ratified by the Curtin government in 1942, marking the point where British and Australian interests diverged.

Hugh Sturgess Balmain
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/we-dont-need-an-englishman-lording-it-over-us-20100929-15x9q.html?skin=text-only]

Some figures on the prospects for children from broken homes

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/broken-homes-can-disadvantage-kids-for-life-study-finds/story-e6frg6nf-1225932001780

The latest developments regarding so-called gay marriage ...

1. "Bandt attacks [The Australian]'s coverage of [The Greens' "legislative timetable"]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bandt-attacks-newspapers-coverage/story-fn59niix-1225931993399

See also the editorial and the "Cut & Paste" section of today's edition of The Australian.

2. From the first link in item 1:

Yesterday, on the first full day of the new parliament, the Greens reintroduced a bill into the Senate legalising gay marriage.

3. "Gillard says no conscience vote on gay marriage"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/29/3024870.htm

4. "Tasmania to recognise same-sex marriage"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/29/3025417.htm?section=justin

Second paragraph of that news item:

An amendment to Tasmania's Relationship Act was passed unopposed in the state's Upper House, meaning marriages performed in countries where it's legal will now be recognised in Tasmania.

(Thanks to Terra for highlighting those last two news stories, which I didn't see covered at http://www.smh.com.au/text or http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ today.)

... and euthanasia

"Church responds to renewed euthanasia efforts"
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=23507

First paragraph of the body of the CathNews item:

Catholic Health Australia is co-ordinating a national response to the renewed nationwide promotion of euthanasia, while the country's bishops have re-issued a submission previously made on the rights of the terminally ill.

Mr. Brent on the history, merits, and demerits of compulsory voting and compulsory voting enrolment

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/lets_make_voting_voluntary/

"Joshua" on "The Legend of the Leonine Prayers"

http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2010/09/legend-of-leonine-prayers.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, September 1, 2010

"MPs to debate same-sex adoption bill"

In today's Herald:

Debate on Clover Moore's same-sex adoption bill has been rushed forward to begin today, as supporters and critics ramped up their lobbying ahead of a conscience vote in the NSW Legislative Assembly which could take place this week.

[...] Ms Moore, the independent MP for Sydney, will reintroduce the bill today - one day earlier than initially planned - to include an amendment that allows faith-based adoption agencies to refuse to provide services to gay and lesbian couples without breaching anti-discrimination laws.

[... The Hon. David Clarke M.L.C.] accused the Premier, Kristina Keneally, who supports the bill, of allowing Ms Moore ''the fast track to get this through in the dying days of this Parliament before the next election''.
[http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mps-to-debate-samesex-adoption-bill-20100831-14fn1.html?skin=text-only]

See also today's Tele:

At a rally against the Bill yesterday, Liberal Party powerbroker David Clarke and Christian Democrat Fred Nile warned abortions would increase if gay couples were allowed to adopt.

"Any mother putting up her baby for adoption would never imagine that their babywould be brought up by two male homosexuals or two female lesbians," Mr Nile said.

[...] Ms Keneally's former leadership rival Frank Sartor is trying to amend the Bill to ensure people who offer children for adoption will not face legal action under anti-discrimination laws if they refuse to let a gay couple adopt their child. ...
[http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/split-over-gay-adoption-widens/story-e6freuzi-1225912518855]

Some opinions on the merits and demerits of compulsory voting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/self-serving-pollies-to-blame-for-forced-vote/story-fn558imw-1225912525711

"Tasmania recognises same-sex marriages"

Brought to my attention by Arabella at CathPews: Body of the A.B.C. article:

The Tasmanian Parliament has approved laws recognising same-sex marriages and civil unions registered in other states or countries.

Only three of the 25 Lower House MPs voted against the amendment to the Relationships Act - Liberal members Rene Hidding, Michael Ferguson and Jacqui Petrusma.

Attorney-General Lara Giddings says the changes will remove discrimination for same-sex couples in registered relationships.

"This is really a small step, but a significant and important step for those people who have registered or been through a civil union process elsewhere around the world and want us to recognise that relationship as indeed being in existence," she said.
[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/31/2998900.htm?section=justin]

"Prelate laments Italy’s population decline"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33480

The AQ article contains a sad projection:

[Italy's] population is expected to decline by nearly 10% in the next four decades.

Msgr. Finn and Mr. Shea on the death penalty

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/this-will-bring-out-a-lot-of-diy-bishops?utm_source=NCRegister.com&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=b2fb596caa-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL

See also
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33471

If I had time I'd do a full-length rebuttal of that piece, but unfortunately I don't.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Giles, Abbot, and of the Twelve Holy Brothers, Martyrs, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday-Friday, August 26-27, 2010

""New and Improved" Novus Ordo Mass Retains Most Grievous Abuse"

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/08/new-and-improved-novus-ordo-mass.html

On the authority of the Bible, and 'arriving at one's own response' thereto

A Herald letter which hints (presumably unwittingly) at why private interpretation of the Bible (Protestantism's first principle) will end up meaning as many Christianities as there are Christians:

No wonder church's future is at stake

[...]

Anyone who still wonders why the church is in decline need only read the Reverend Kevin Murray's letter (August 25). Requiring men (women are not ordained into the Presbyterian church as ministers) to sign a statement saying they recognise the authority of the Bible, but not allowing them to arrive at their own responses to this authority, says it all. I respect and revere the Bible, but I worship the God of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Pam Connor Mollymook Beach
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/yet-another-victim-in-a-war-without-reason-20100825-13s36.html?skin=text-only]

On numbering more than one Senate ballot sheet box above the line

The second sentence of the second paragraph mentions how it would work (not that I have formed an opinion one way or another on the merits of such a proposal, though):

Law of unintended consequences

[...]

I agree with the thrust of Alex Stitt's letter (August 26) about the inability or unwillingness of folk to number to 84 on the Senate ballot paper. It is quite a daunting task, and can easily lead to errors, thus resulting in an informal vote. But the "above-the-line" system is inherently undemocratic as it allows political parties to control preference flows.

So why can't we number all the boxes above the line? That way the voter controls the preference flow and the parties control only the order of their candidates.

Bill Young Greenwich
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/whatever-independents-do-will-upset-someone-20100826-13u35.html?skin=text-only]

Another interesting voting-system proposal

One which I had not considered before reading this, the first letter in the "short & sharp" column in the Sydney Daily Telegraph's "your say" section last Wednesday, p. 33 (and, again, with which I don't necessarily agree, but find interesting):

IT SEEMS to me that a far better system than people not knowing where their preferences are going would be if each voter was allowed to mark two Xs for the Upper House and two Xs for the Lower House. Whoever gets the most Xs wins. Even if that person is your second choice, if they have the most Xs then clearly they are supported by most of the community in that area.
Chris Roberts Engadine

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Joseph Calasanctius, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Another Herald letter proposing preferential voting with discounting of the value of distributed votes:

Half measures

While we have a preferential voting system that values the second preference vote the same as a primary vote, we will rarely get a result that reflects the true will of the people. Preferences should be transferred at a lesser value - say half that of a first preference. This would reduce the horse-trading in preferences among parties and give us a more accurate assessment of what voters want.

Rob Hurdwell Bowral
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/consensus-works-for-all-but-especially-tamworth-20100824-13q8l.html?skin=text-only]

"Toleration, Ascendancy, Democracy"--article on the history of religious toleration in the British Isles

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33328

Long but interesting article. It begins thus:

Tolerance, according to the apostle of English Liberalism, John Stuart Mill, was the outcome of the failure of intolerance. The different factions of English Protestantism had a go at suppressing each other, including a civil war, and failed. They were therefore left with no option but to tolerate each other.

So religious pluralism appears as the unavoidable consequence of Protestantism--once public judgement (i.e. judgement by the Magisterium) has been replaced with private judgement, religious unity will inevitably break down, making toleration of any and all sects the only tenable policy.

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

Notes: Friday, August 20, 2010

A letter reminding us of one of the benefits of voting for a minor party, even if one doesn't expect that party to win

From yesterday's Herald (I forgot to post this in yesterday's edition of Notes):

Value for $2.31

Voters who are disappointed at the lacklustre performance of the main parties (Letters, August 18) must realise their vote is valuable. Each time you give a primary vote to any party that gets more than 4 per cent of the vote, it gets $2.31 of taxpayers' money. For those who feel the urge to lodge a protest vote, don't waste your $2.31. The answer is simple: vote first for one of the many minor parties.

It needn't be the Liberal Democrats (although it would be appreciated). Any minor party would be grateful for your "donation" if it gets above 4 per cent of the primary vote. The added benefit is that voters then starve the larger parties of electoral funding and send a clear message that they need to lift their game.

Peter Whelan Liberal Democratic Party candidate for Macquarie
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/honest-footballer-puts-slippery-pollies-to-shame-20100818-12f11.html?skin=text-only]

At the Australian Electoral Commission website: Group Voting Tickets (Senate preference flows) for New South Wales (NSW) Tickets Q to AF (of Tickets A to AF), 2010 federal election

This might be useful for you as you work out how you're going to vote in the Senate ballot (see elsewhere on the A.E.C.'s website for the preference flow arrangements in other States):

http://www.aec.gov.au/election/nsw/gvt2.htm

Excerpt from a lecture by then-Cardinal Ratzinger on the Mass and Christ's Sacrifice:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-where-did-mass-facing-the-people-come-from/#comment-219410

"Expert: Prop 8 Trial Based on False or Dubious Statements about Homosexuality"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33279

"Medical Journal Confirms Abortion Associated With Increased Premature Birth"

Also posted at AQ:

Washington, DC -- A new report in a prestigious medical journal confirms what previous studies have shown: abortion is associated with an increased risk of premature birth in subsequent pregnancies. Although the link is well-established, women are not normally informed of the risk when they are counseled at abortion centers.
[http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33271]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Bernard, Abbot, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, August 19, 2010

Bl. Mary of the Cross (Mary MacKillop) on voting

In today's Herald:

The soon to be canonised Mary MacKillop wrote in 1903 to the Sisters of Saint Joseph of the Sacred Heart before Australia's second federal election when women won the right to vote for the first time. ''Find out who are the members proposed for election and vote for those who are considered most friendly to the Church and Religion,'' she said, before adding a cautionary note.

''Every so-called Catholic is not the best man.''
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/traditional-voting-patterns-20100818-12f8z.html?skin=text-only]

On the respective past careers of today's Federal Parliamentarians

Also in today's Herald:

... 97 per cent of today's federal parliamentarians come straight from careers as ''managers, administrators or professionals'', figures from the Parliamentary Library show. ... There is not a single tradesperson among them.
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/toffs-replace-tinsmiths-in-parliament-20100818-12f92.html?skin=text-only]

H.H. The Pope's three 'non-negotiables' in public morality

I was reminded of these by the political party fact sheet which The Archdiocese of Sydney's Life, Marriage and Family Centre published in last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly, and I thought that I'd like to keep them for future reference, and bring them to your attention, since they're quite good:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.
[Address of His Holiness Benedict XVI to the Members of the European People's Party on the Occasion of the Study Days on Europe,
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians_en.html]

Fr. Flader on morality and voting (mostly good article) and usury (bad article)

The Rev. Fr. John Flader had a mostly good "Question Time" piece in the Sydney Catholic Weekly two Sundays ago on voting:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=7261&class=Features&subclass=Question Time

but unfortunately followed it up with a lamentable one last Sunday on usury:

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=3&subclassID=59&articleID=7278&class=Features&subclass=Question Time

Emily's List: Pro-abortion, of course, but all the way up to and including full term?

A writer to last Sunday's Sydney Catholic Weekly said the following:

To have the financial and political support of Emily’s List, a candidate must support the abortion of a full term baby right up to the moment of birth.

Emily’s List won’t tolerate any restrictions on abortion, even for viable full-term babies.
[http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=2&subclassID=5&articleID=7280&class=Comment&subclass=Letters]

I checked the Emily's List official website, and though, as we know, Emily's List is pro-abortion, I couldn't find out whether this support is unconditional. Could any of my readers provide any evidence for this?

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Eudes, Confessor, 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: 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

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, July 24-27, 2010

"U. of IL Says Catholic Prof 'Not Fired' - Just Can't Teach"

Apparently Dr. Howell's employment was not terminated; he was just barred from teaching (same effect, of course):

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32699

Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
July 27, 2010 at 4:06 am

“But oddly, Your Eminence, according to Gleeson, the prevailing secular ideology DOES consider it possible to harm others and rejects any act that might result in such harm.”

Mr. Schütz, did you mean to say “DOES NOT“? Otherwise there seems to be an internal contradiction there.

“[You are] sure that in some circumstances a person can be (and should be) criminally charged for abuse even if (at the time of the abuse) the victim “consented”.”

I agree, and presumably so would most, perhaps all, secular (Godless) ethicists, but my point is that the Godless ethicist cannot prove, in the light of his first principles, that it is morally wrong–as in transgressing a moral obligation–to harm others, even against their will.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/how-useful-would-a-secular-catechism-be/#comment-16060]

At Terra's blog:

(Response to Wolsey)

"A state that compels participation in liberal democracy is not acting in furtherance of the common good as liberal democracy does not further the common good."

Interesting that you say that, York; it had occurred to me that Australia's liberalism was a factor to consider in this discussion, though no-one had raised it explicitly until your comment. I see it this way: Democracy is a legitimate form of government. Liberalism, however, is evil, false, absurd, and condemned irrevocably by the Church. Liberalism, then, is like a cancer in the body politic. Now we know that the common good is to the State what health and well-being is to a human person. So if a person had a cancer, even a self-inflicted one, would that mean that we were forbidden to help that person with other aspects of his health and well-being? No, not necessarily, so long as we weren't co-operating formally in the carcinogenic behaviour. Hence I don't see why the natural law would necessarily forbid us to participate in the political life of a liberal democracy.

(Response to Anon.)

Anon., I don't dispute that Australian governments have sometimes, perhaps often, acted against the common good; I dispute that Australian governments have ceased to be legimitate governments or that they are legitimate but that their laws are to be regarded as invalid until proven otherwise.

(Response to Salvatore)

"Surely the AEC represents a reasonable source of information in such a discussion?"

A few problem with that information come to mind:

1. It only applies to Queensland.
2. Were government members the only M.P.s to vote for the relevant Bill (remember, a government doesn't legislate--Parliament legislates)?
3. Even supposing that that Act was invalid at the time, subsequent governments, including Labor governments presumably, didn't repeal it.

And as you concede, the law still wasn't necessarily invalid just because it might have been badly motivated.

"Consequently, if the Australian Government’s imposition of this duty is to be just, there must be some characteristic(s) of our nation or its system of government which requires it. What might this (these) be?"

I don't know, and I don't need to know in order for the Act to bind my conscience, just as I don't need to know that, say, a given industry and its influence on the common good require a certain piece of industrial legislation in order for it to bind my conscience. I can only regard legislation as valid until proven invalid, and nobody has proven the Act, or the relevant parts, invalid.

July 27, 2010 3:53 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Pantaleon, Martyr, A.D. 2010

Notes: Friday, July 23, 2010

Just some blog comments by me:

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
July 23, 2010 at 4:37 am

“It is true that we don’t have a collection of secular doctrines neatly arranged as a sort of “Secular Catechism” – but wouldn’t it be helpful if we did?”

We do. Read The Declaration of the Rights of Man, the Syllabus of Errors, Quanta cura, things like that.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/how-useful-would-a-secular-catechism-be/#comment-15995]

Cardinal Pole
July 23, 2010 at 4:53 am

“does secular ethics ever say it is possible to do harm to yourself, even if your action does no harm to anyone else?”

If by secular ethics we mean Godless ethics, and if without God there is no such thing as true and proper moral obligation, and if the absence of moral obligation is moral liberty, then secular ethics tells us that we not only have the moral liberty to harm ourselves, but also unrestricted moral liberty to harm others, indeed, to do anything we please. That’s why, as Fr. Fahey mentions in The Kingship of Christ according to the Principles of St. Thomas Aquinas, in the secularist ethics axiom which can be stated as ‘do whatever you want, however self- or mutually-destructive, so long as everyone involved consents’, the ‘so long as everyone else involved consents’ bit is baseless. Secular ethics’s first and only principle is: Do whatever you want, full stop. And if you don’t like the sound of that, then, as Professor Dawkins might say, tough!
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/how-useful-would-a-secular-catechism-be/#comment-15996]

At Terra's blog:

Cardinal Pole said...

"compulsory voting was introduced in this country by (various) Governments solely because they believed it would be an advantage to them in an upcoming election."

Prove it. (Not that it would matter; a bad motive on the part of a legislator doesn't necessarily invalidate his legislation.)

"Compulsory Voting unjustly vitiates [your] ‘Right to Participate’ by depriving [you] of [your] ‘Right to Not Participate’."

Absurd. People in a democracy have no more 'right not to participate' than the king in a monarchy has a 'right not to participate'.

Another way to look at it is this: Rights are either natural or acquired. Obviously your supposed 'right not to participate' is not an acquired right, so it must be a natural right. So you need to show how the natural law gives you this 'right'.

"Given that ‘right’ and ‘duty’ are antithetical, the statement is
meaningless."

So you deny that someone with a right can conceivably have, on occasions, a duty to exercise that right?

July 23, 2010 2:54 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Apollinaris, Bishop, Martyr, and of St. Liborius, Bishop, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Notes: Thursday, July 22, 2010

"Russian Orthodox patriarch praises Pope, rips Protestant compromises with secularism"

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32655

An interesting Herald letter with a proposal for reform of Australia's preferential voting system

In today's edition of The Sydney Morning Herald:

Preferential system is not half what it could be

The primary vote of minor parties has increased in recent elections, but the preferential system distorts the result.

A candidate who is an elector's third choice receives the same ''vote value'' as if he or she was the first choice - hardly what the voter intended. Not only does it not reflect the wishes of the voter, it distorts the level of support candidates have garnered.

A more equitable structure would be to discount the value of preferences by 50 per cent each time they are distributed, to more accurately reflect the voter's choice. Thus 100 votes cast as a first preference would become 50 votes when passed to the next preferred candidate and 25 votes when passed to the third choice. This concept takes on increased relevance with the recent arrangement of the Greens and Labor to exchange preferences in the lower house.

There is much to commend the concept of preferential voting, but in its current format it fails the test of being truly representative of the electorate's wishes. By amending the system to incorporate a 50 per cent reduction as each preference is passed down, it makes the system truly representative.

Alan Plumb Milsons Point
[http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/democracy-hijacked-by-people-who-dont-care-20100721-10l0v.html?skin=text-only]

Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
July 22, 2010 at 4:40 am

There was a good discussion on that communique at the Angelqueen forum:

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32500
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/vatican-announces-that-2011-world-day-of-peace-will-be-dedicated-to-religious-freedom/#comment-15950]

At Terra's blog:

Cardinal Pole said...

Terra's comment of July 22, 2010 1:23 AM answers the previous comments quite well, but I'll still offer, if I may, the following thoughts:

(Response to Salvatore)
"[You] suppose ultimately it depends on whether one regards voting as a duty or a right."

No, it depends ultimately on whether the natural law commands, forbids, or permits compulsory voting, not on whether a private citizen 'regards' voting as this or that (sorry if that sounds curt; I don't mean it to be).

"If it’s a duty then there’s no problem with the State coercing its subjects to vote."

It isn't necessarily a duty, but it will be in polities in which the competent authority commands its subjects to vote (though even where voting is voluntary the natural law can sometimes command, on pain of sin, voters to exercise that right--see Fr. Jone in Moral Theology).

"A right, on the other hand, represents a freedom to act (or not) and, as such, cannot of its nature be the subject of compulsion."

Nevertheless, the natural law can, whether remotely (that is, through a lawful superior) or proximately, command one to exercise a right in certain instances.

"As [you]’ve never been convinced by the ‘duty’ arguments for voting, [you] maintain that the compulsion to vote vitiates [your] democratic rights."

There are a number of schools of thought on how to know whether an obligation does or does not exist. Of the schools of thought which the Church tolerates, the least strict is probabilism (sp?), according to which there is no obligation if there exists a solid probability of non-obligation. Your reasoning here wouldn't be valid even for a probabilist; you have demonstrated neither an intrinsic probability--all you can say is that you aren't convinced by arguments for compulsory voting, therefore you aren't bound to do so, which would be like someone saying that he isn't convinced by the arguments for compulsory Mass attendance on Sunday, therefore he isn't bound to do so--nor an extrinsic probability--you haven't referred us to any respected authors who hold your opinion.

(Response to Anne Nonny Mouse)
"Huh? Cardinal Pole asserts without any justification "The onus is on whoever says that it is unjust to prove the alleged injustice.""

In my first, longer draft of that comment I gave the two reasons why, but I ended up deciding to submit as short a comment as possible. Anyway, here are the two reasons:

1. The general truth that 'he who affirms must prove'.
2. Lawful superiors enjoy the benefit of the doubt about their commands.

"Since the claim is for the state to compel people to act surely it is for the state to demonstrate that it has the authority to do so and that what it compels is just."

No it isn't; the State, like any lawful superior, enjoys the benefit of the doubt. What you're advocating here is a sort of 'presumption of guilt' when in fact lawful superiors enjoy a 'presumption of innocence', a presumption that their commandsare valid until demonstrated not to be.

Someone has to demonstrate that the natural law forbids compulsory voting if we are to reject the relevant sections of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as invalid commands. (I say that to both Salvatore and Anne Nonny Mouse, as well as to anyone who disputes the validity of all or parts of the Act.)

July 22, 2010 3:20 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Mary Magdalen, Penitent, A.D. 2010

Notes: Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Greens-Labor preference deal:

[T]he Greens will receive Labor Senate preferences in every state and territory, and Labor will receive Greens preferences in more than 50 marginal seats.
[http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/fear-mongering-over-greens-deal-20100720-10jjw.html?skin=text-only]

Mr. Muehlenberg contra Mr. Hinch on so-called gay marriage

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/heterosexual-marriage-is-societys-bedrock/story-e6frg6zo-1225894778178

I seem to recall that Mr. Muehlenberg had a response to Mr. Rodney Croome's recent piece on 'gay marriage' rejected by Fairfax, so I was glad to see this piece published in The Australian today. It is a mostly good summary of the arguments against this curious thing.

Mr. Winders's father was a Freemason

Occasionally one sees letters or comments in the papers or on-line by Mr. Lewis Winders; some of you might be familiar with these. Here is a revealing recent comment by him which I wish to keep for future reference:

Lewis Winders of Tasmania Posted at 3:28 PM July 20, 2010

Glad you mentioned the Freemasons, Henk (a group which, at the last tally, had a record of sexual assaults, infant rapes, violent crusades, tortures and burnings at the stake totalling absolutely zero). My late father was instrumental in introducing women to some of the formerly male-only ceremonies in the Lodge at which he was GM. It certainly rocked a few people's boats at the time but they soon noticed that the world continued to revolve on its axis, so the Great Architect was obviously not too enraged at the idea. Many of the members even grew to appreciate the ladies' company. Just imagine: a group of men enjoying the presence and contribution of women! How misguided is that?
Comment 14 of 14
[http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mindless-misogyny/comments-fn558imw-1225894270061]

(Wow, so no Freeemasons in the history of Freemasonry have ever individually or corporately committed sexual assault, or infant rape, or been involved in, to coin a term, compassades (e.g. rebellion leading to the usurpation of sovereignty over the Papal States; readers might be able to furnish other examples), or torture or killing (whatever happened to William Morgan, anyhow?)? Impressive!)

Mind you, I don't want to read too much into the younger Mr. Winders's Masonic connections; our society is so thoroughly liberal, naturalistic, and anti-Catholic that Mr. Winders could just as easily have picked up his tenets from extra-domestic/extra-parental influences.

Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
July 21, 2010 at 5:18 am

“precisely because Latin doesn’t have articles, if the sense of “one god, but not the one God” was intended, the text would need to include something to point to this.”

Which simply tells us that the sense of “one god, but not the one God” was presumably not intended.

” [I]Nobiscum Deum adorant unicum[/I] means that they adore the unique God along with us”

As would all monotheists (at least those who hold that God can and ought to be adored, of course), yet as we agree, the fact that two persons or sets of persons are monotheists does not mean that their respective monotheisms have the same God.

“the preceding sentence, which [I] don’t quote ”

Because I’m interested here in Islam in particular rather than monotheism in general; indeed, that first sentence reinforces my case to the extent that it reminds us that not everyone who holds that one god is the creator adores the same god.

“You can’t have [I]a[/I] unique God”

Why not? Each of us has, for instance, a unique Tax File Number.

“If the author wanted to say that Muslims and Christian each worship a god which they conceive to be unique, he would need to say that.”

Assuming, of course, that that was indeed what he wanted to say! If he just wanted to say that Muslims are monotheists and to list some of the features of their monotheism, which is presumably all the author in fact wanted to do, then he can do that by saying what was indeed said.

“In short, the [I]Deus unicus[/I] adored by Muslims is the [I]Creator[/I].”

As is the unique god adored by any monotheist who adores a god as creator.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/bill-muehlenberg-takes-issue-with-my-post-on-cadburys-chocolate/#comment-15902]

Cardinal Pole
July 21, 2010 at 6:16 am

Just to clarify the sentence taking up text lines 4-5 of the body of that comment: What I mean there is that the author presumably just wanted to say that Muslims worship one God, while neither affirming nor denying that that one God is the one God, i.e., the same God we Christians worship.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/bill-muehlenberg-takes-issue-with-my-post-on-[cadburys-chocolate/#comment-15904]

At Terra's blog:

Cardinal Pole said...

"Is it just for the State to compel [you] to vote in elections"

The onus is on whoever says that it is unjust to prove the alleged injustice.

July 21, 2010 5:01 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Lawrence of Brindisi, Confessor, Doctor of the Church, A.D. 2010

Notes: Saturday-Tuesday, July 17-20, 2010

D.I.C.I. article on the new President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32557

D.I.C.I. commentary accompanying the article:

The statement by the new official responsible for ecumenism at Rome should be noted: “Benedict XVI does not want in any way to go backwards,” in other words, to what was taught before the Second Vatican Council—in the encyclical Mortalium animos (by Pius XI), for example. One should also remark that, according to the Swiss prelate, the pope desires a reformatio, a reform allowing the Church to “rediscover its authentic shape, as the Second Vatican Council has already effected/accomplished [réalisé(e)]”. Reading the excerpts from the latest work by Msgr. Gherardini (see our Documents) shows that such a reformatio is more than compromised because, according to the director of the review Divinitas, this council is in conflict with Tradition on at least 9 points which are not insignificant. In passing, one might also ask whether this reformatio, presented as “already effected/accomplished by Vatican II” still needs to be done. And if it has already been effected/accomplished, what are its fruits? The creation of a new Pontifical Council for the evangelization of the countries which “are experiencing the progressive secularization of society and a sort of ‘eclipse of the sense of God’” provides a significant answer to that question.

See also the first comment at that thread for an editorial by Fr. Lorans on the possible tension between the respective aims of that Pontifical Council and of the new Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelisation.

Blog comments by me

At Mr. Schütz's blog:

Cardinal Pole
July 20, 2010 at 3:57 am

Mr. Schütz, neither of the two Conciliar/Catechism texts you adduced said that Muslims worship the same deity as Christians, or that what they adore is the God of Abraham:

“In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, [Cf St. Gregory VII, letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (Pl. 148, col. 450f.) ] who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”

Given that Latin doesn’t have articles, I would expect that things like “the one and merciful God” and “the one God” could be translated respectively as ‘a single, merciful god’, ‘a single god’ (with capital ‘g’s if you prefer). Note also those two texts’ purely subjective linking of the Muslim God to the God of Abraham–”professing to hold the faith of Abraham”, “Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself”.

So in fact it would seem that the one and only Magisterial pronouncement which supports the identity of the Lord and the Muslim God is when John Paul II. said that “[w]e believe in the same God”. But given that His late Holiness made that statement “to a rally of Muslim youth” can it even be considered Magisterial? (And I don’t ask that rhetorically–can someone tell me whether that is to be classified as a Magisterial pronouncement? Mr. Schütz says that it was an Act of the Ordinary Magisterium, but the criteria for that are that the pronouncement be on a matter of Faith–the Catholic Faith, not the faith of any other religion–or morals and in the Pope or Bishop’s teaching capacity. John Paul II.’s statement that we (Christians and Muslims) believe in the same God seems to me to fail the first criterion, and possibly the second one too.

Now of course Muslims profess much about God which is knowable by unaided reason. But they also profess much about which unaided reason can give no answer, thus exceeding the proper scope of philosophy. If you ask the hypothetical ‘virtuous pagan’ (to whom the Gospel has not been announced but who knows, loves and serves God as far as right reason dictates) how many Persons are God and he answers ‘I don’t know’, then he worships the same God as Christians. But he who answers ‘God is not personal’ or ‘only one person is God’ does not. (Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken, Muslims are also in error on some points of natural theology–a commenter at this blog recently mentioned how she said to a Muslim colleague that God is love, which he denied).

So do Christians and Muslims believe in the same God? Mr. Schütz was right to point out that it is a non sequitur to say that “Muslims profess to be monotheists and therefore the God they worship must logically be the God we worship”. But if the fact that both Christians and Muslims profess monotheism does not imply that we believe in the same God, then why would the fact that both Christians and Muslims profess ‘Abrahamism’, to coin a term, imply that we believe in the same God (given that we disagree as to the content of ‘Abrahamism’)? It seems to me that there is no logical or Magisterial reason to conclude that the respective objects of Christian and Muslim adoration are one and the same.
[http://scecclesia.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/bill-muehlenberg-takes-issue-with-my-post-on-cadburys-chocolate/#comment-15868]

At Terra's blog:

Cardinal Pole said...

"since Australia has secret ballots the requirement is to attend a polling station. One can then voting informally."

That is incorrect. 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.)

And of course in addition to these intrinsic reasons there are also, as Terra indicated, extrinsic reasons to vote properly--one way or another, one of the candidates is going to win whichever office is being contested, so it seems to me that we might as well do our part to make sure that the least-worst one wins.

July 20, 2010 1:17 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/07/and-it-is-on-australia-goes-to-polls-on.html]

At Coo-ees:

Cardinal Pole said...

Check out the conference photos which Mr. Coyne has helpfully provided--can anyone spot any Roman collars (I don't want to be too droll and ask whether anyone can spot any cassocks)?

July 20, 2010 2:25 AM
Your comment has been saved and will be visible after blog owner approval.
[http://coo-eesfromthecloister.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-bother-going.html]

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Jerome Emiliani, Confessor, A.D. 2010

Fr. Zuhlsdorf, human rights and the State

Rev. Fr. John T. Zuhlsdorf has posted some interesting remarks regarding human rights and the State on his blog. I reproduce them here in full:

I am irritated by something I have heard over the last couple days.

The pols and newsies keep talking about the anniversary of "giving women the right to vote" in the USA.

No!

Women always had the right to vote.

Their right to vote was finally recognized.

We must avoid, in discussing human rights and government, falling into the trap of thinking that the state grants rights.

We have rights because our Creator made us in His image and likeness.

They are written into our being.

We grant the state its rights and obligations.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/08/irritated-by-something-i-hear-repeated/#comment-82821

The subsequent discussion abounded with confusion; I even saw Fr. Maritain and the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights being cited. In any discussion on rights and the State we need to keep the following principles in mind:

1) All authority is from God (Romans 13:1, Douay-Rheims version: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.”)

2) The State is the juridical and moral person that exercises God-given civil authority over a given populace in a given territory.

3) The State’s proper end is the common good. (This end is indirectly subordinate to the Church’s end, the salvation of souls.)

4) The State’s laws shall conform to God’s Laws; when they contradict God’s Laws they are not binding on the citizen.

5) A natural right is the moral liberty justifiably to claim some entitlement. Therefore the object of a natural right can only ever be that which is true and good. And for every right there is a corresponding duty.

So with these principles in mind, it is clear that no-one has a natural right to vote, though it might be the case that, in certain historical circumstances, it might be conducive to the common good for the State to grant a civil right to its subjects to vote, i.e., to grant universal or partial suffrage. This will depend on things like the moral and intellectual development of the populace, the sophistication of the means of disseminating information, and so on. And man's ontological dignity (his orientation towards a higher end, namely God) is no basis for a supposed 'right to vote'; this is clear from the fact that the State can deprive convicts and the insane of their right to vote, while those same individuals can never be deprived of their ontological dignity by the State.

Note that I spoke of ‘universal suffrage’ rather than democracy. Universal suffrage is just a means for choosing a government, whereas democracy is a principle of government according to which authority is held to originate in the people (from the Greek demos, or ‘the people’, and kratia, or ‘power, rule’). According to this principle, as Leo XIII put it in Immortale Dei (though without naming it as democracy), the populace delegates to the government “not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.” This is incompatible with a Catholic sensibility, since the State is, whether it likes it or not, a delegate of Christ the King, not a delegate of the populace.

A theme running through the discussion at Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog is the notion of some kind of requirement for popular consent, whether expressed through a vote or not. But it is not clear to me that the people’s consent really has any part to play in the matter. So long as the State acknowledges Christ as the source of its authority, so long as it upholds the common good, and so long as it translates God’s Laws into civil laws and never defies them, it rules justly.

As for the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, when it states, as someone quoted it, that “[t]he will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government”, this is clearly un-Catholic when compared with Romans 13:1, and in fact it has much in common with the principles of the French Revolution. And as for Fr. Maritain, Mr. Michael Davies showed quite clearly in The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty that Fr. Maritain’s theory of the State as merely a specialised portion of society concerned with upholding public order (the theory underpinning his ‘Integral Humanism’) rather than as a juridical and moral person upholding the common good (a broader category than mere public order) is erroneous.

Reginaldvs Cantvar