Cherwell

Come and Gone

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:32:00 +0000

The 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae has been greeted with as much enthusiasm as did its original publication. You would not think that it was the anniversary of one of the most prophetic documents in recent Church history. Given our contemporary tendency to celebrate everything, you would think that it would at least get a mention. As a curiosity, how many of your local pastors have mentioned it? How many of these local pastors have mentioned global warming? Social justice? Lay ministry? etc? Coincidence?

The current silence surrounding humanae vitae is a very strange thing. When the document was released, its detractors were very vocal in telling the world how backward the Church's attitude was to women, sex and basically everything. Then there was something like a conspiracy of silence in which the document was just left untouched. It was the unspoken rule that HV was the unmentionable document. The alcoholic uncle of the magesterium- everyone knew who he was, you just never mentioned him.

By why the silence now? If the detractors of the 60s and 70s, ironically those who are now in their sixties and seventies, were so right in their claims about HV, why aren't they so vocal now. If the document was a failure, why not be vocal? Why not press the point home that the document was a disater then and history has proved us right? After all, this was not a generation of shrinking violets. The anniversary of HV should be a tombstone and not a cake. Yet, they are surprisingly silent. But why?

HV is usually sold to us as being a document obsessed with sex. It is a document that is exclusively about 'getting pregnant at all costs.' You know, if you didn't have fourteen children by age forty, then there is something wrong. Usual rubbish.

The document is really about two things in particular, which are expressed as a prophecy. The first is the intrinsic link between sexual identity and its expression and the responsibility that it engenders. The second is that sexual identity and expression is clearly part of the person and requires a community of persons if it is to be expressed in a way that leads to happiness. Very beautiful.

The silence is not because HV has turned out to be a failure, but rather that it has turned out to be so correct. HV warns all persons of goodwill that when man tampers with his sexual identity he risks his happiness and at the same time risks the precarious balance that is in the world. The recent debate about stem cells and in particular the hybrid embryo bill in the UK should be witnesses to that. Yet if anyone in the years of HV's release had warned of what was coming, they would have been written off as paranoid and crazy. Yet look at what has happened. The only option for HV's detractors is silence. To say anything would be to give the game away and expose their own failures and not the documents.

How ironic that the young and liberal of the 60s should now be the old and conservative of the 21st century. Theirs is a silence of conservatism, an alternative magesterium- a magesterium that is fatally flawed.

Time to Come Home

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:08:00 +0000

It is often said that evil makes progress when good men refuse to fight. It would seem that a parallel argument can be made for Faith.

The great question is not so much whether "true Catholics" have faith, it is rather a question of whether they will fight to defend it. It is not so much that we say the right things, it is more that we struggle and fight to live them.

The wrong way round

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:12:00 +0000

Most of us think that a catholic seminary produces good priests. That's not exactly true. A catholic seminary takes good men and turns them into good priests. Or that is at least the wisdom of Grace building on nature for the last two milennia.

You see the priesthood doesn't form men in core values as much as it attracts and recruits men who share those values and whose desire is to learn how to live them more deeply and teach others to do the same.

It is only when the hierarchy understands that it is about gathering men truly inspired by the Gospel that there will be a renewal of the clergy. We may find many talented people in the world who can do many things, but the measure of vocation is love of God and neighbour and the willingness to make the sacrifice of self for the Gospel. The experiments in 'alternative vocations' of the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s are a complete disaster. If anyone has any doubt, just see how much your average diocese is paying in insurance premiums for its clergy.

Change will come when this one simple principle is lived by the catholic hierarchy- that no idea or talent and not even the promise of great things to come can make up for this one ideal- a shared love for the Gospel. If the sons of the Church get this right, then we will get the world right.

A hotline to God

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:53:00 +0000

What can you say to a person who believes he has a personal and exclusive hotline to God? Certainly you can't disagree with him, after all he has the inside news- not you!

And so it is with Bishop Tiny Muskens of Holland in the NY Times article about his recently speaking on behalf of the Almighty. He recently said in an interview that Allah is a beautiful name for God (and so it may well be) and that Christians should simply refer to God as Allah, since God has apparently revealed something to the good bishop, and we quote:

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?'' Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. ''God doesn't care what we call him.''

Well, I may have not have studied as much theology as bishop Muskens, but I do remember something rather distinctly about God's name and its revelation to a particular people. Something that in the end has set that people apart from all others, that God gave them His name and called them His own. Mind you I might have been reading and older version of this book, and perhaps the bishop's copy is more up to date then the one I was reading.

Indeed a person's name means nothing to you when the person is not important. I would never forget the name of my mother or father, nor would I allow anyone to change or falsify their names on the pretext that it doesn't matter what we call them, what matters is that I love them, or some other equally meaningless phrase. A person's name does matter, because that is how we address ourselves to him and at the same time how we come to know him. A no name brand God is not a God worthy of our adoration.

What the bishop doesn't get in his bending over to appease the Muslims is that he will in the end offend everyone, including the Muslims, let alone Jews and Christians as well. But that's what happens when a person lives in a world of his own, or spends too much time on the phone, listening to some others, even if he is convinced that the other is really God. Did God reverse the charges?

Don't fall for the default settings

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:16:00 +0000

One of the liberal intelligentsia's greatest successes was to make their principles normative. They somehow suckered the whole world into thinking that the default position of the human mind towards religion should be disbelief. That religion was something outside the ordinary workings of human thought, something that went beyond the boundaries of reason and was, for better or worse, the precinct of a chosen few. It did not belong to the masses but rather it was the minors who went to Mass. Religion in the popular imagination ceased being something to which the human person was naturally disposed; it became an extra, a hobby for the cerebrally challenged.

I suppose the war was waged on many fronts. However, a particularly effective argument today is really the rehashing of the old ideas of the Enlightenment. Or perhaps to put it in more contemporary journalistic jargon 'O, you're one of those. I didn't know.' That ever happen to you?

It seems that the intelligentsia, far from being happy with throwing rocks at the religious edifice, started to throw cream pies at it as well. Not happy to challenge religion on the basis of first principles and the laws of logical demonstration, they chose to challenge religion's right to principles at all. Instead of trying the reasonableness of religion they tried the right of religion to any reasons whatsoever!

Any religious person today is subject to a kind of almost automatic scrutiny of their sanity whenever their beliefs are discovered. Of course the intelligentsia have been quick not to discredit the social phenomenon of religion, after all, what on earth would they publish their books on if they totally discredited it? Rather, what causes such instantaneous perplexity is not that anyone should be interested in the ideas of religion, but that someone would actually do anything about that interest, expect of course buy books.

It happens to most of us at work, parties or on social occasions that when a person discovers that you have the Faith that they look at you sympathetically, as though they should lead you by the hand and sit you down and pour you a stiff drink. The same person who is probably going through a divorce, never sees his children and who thinks that he is living the good life.

Yet just how different are we?

The greatest obstacle to the claims of reasonable religion is not that religion is just a bunch of theories for those who have seen the light, but rather that religon is for those who can't find meaning in anything real and so look for meaing in the meaningless. To be thoroughly religious, and in my case Catholic, requires a real will to reason with humility, not just to rely on the reasons of others. So many people are horrified to think that we could actually follow the teachings of someone, i.e. the Pope. Yet that person would probably not have one opinion that you could not find on the wrapping of his fish and chips on a Friday night.

Of course this is not just to be smug, rather it is the obvious fact that we each have our dogmas and we each have our seats of authority to whom we pay respect. We have simply chosen God and they haven't. Everybody has a Bible, some call it holy some call it the BBC.

A little bird told me

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:29:00 +0000

Much has been overlooked with the recent motu prorio of Benedict XVI. Many on both sides of the liturgical fence have been too busy flinging rocks at one another in this latest round of liturgical terrorism and counter-terrorism to see what the pope is really doing. The triumphalism of some quarters and the pessimism of others has done much to undermine the depth of vision that emanates from the man chiefly responsible for this document. Our pope.

In reality the document is about much more than missals and decrees, it highlights an approach to the Council and its implementation that has been missing from many Church sons since the Council closed- the idea of continuity. This goes far beyond the "we are right and you are wrong" approach. It is to say that the Council itself is something far greater than party politics and that the future of the Church like her past depends on one thing only- Her fidelity to Christ. We haven't come up with a new way of being Catholic, even though its expression may change. We haven't come up for a new reason for why we should be Catholic, man still needs salvation. And just as importantly we haven't had to come up with a new explanation for what Catholicism is or a justification for its existence- the Church is Chris's body and is forever one in Him.

It would seem that there is a tendency on both sides to want to see the Council as something new. The liberal agenda wants to hijack VCII and make it their project and subject to their whims of expression and the latest fads of the day. The reactionary agenda wants to undermine the Council and portray it as some kind of novelty, making it something that came from nowhere and which should just as quickly go back there.

It would seem that the Pope has both camps in mind when he lined up the motu proprio. The great irony is that the liberal and reactionary agenda is the same, to make the Council appear to be what suits their propose and not that their purpose should suit the Council's teaching.

God bless our Pope.

Just to let you know

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 07:40:00 +0000

It seems the only thing that is of any interest to the Australian news media about the Catholic Church recently is the Victorian priest who was caught on Youtube. The one mentioned below.

The followup article "Victorian priest flees Melbourne" is just another example of the quest for truth that just seems to evade the media's grasp. If it were anyone else he would have been seeking solitude, a pause for reflection- since he is a priest he must be on the run.

Of course in the spirit of follow-up journalism, no one ever seemed to ask why those innocent little cherubs who bore the brunt of such an unprovoked attack had a video camera with them on the day of the incident. Now that is a mystery... kids doing what they shouldn't...kids filming with video cameras... kids with the presence of mind to upload it onto Youtube and promote it... Nope, can't say I see any mischief in that. No need for another stories boys, mystery solved!

Where O Europe is your Faith?

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:12:00 +0000

Lately there seems to be an unusual number of weeping Catholic prelates. From Italy to Germany and now France, it seems that the Church's bishops have gotten in touch with their feelings and decided to broadcast them to the world. If only they would do that for the Faith.

Much of this new found sentiment is directed at or rather against a few Church documents that were published just before the summer break. I think we know which two. A German bishop Gerhard Feige has published a letter in the Leipzig Catholic weekly that seeks to compensate for some of the Church's shortcomings in its teaching- that he doesn't believe it.

The second comes from the French. How curious that the French are follow the Germans, anyway, they too have something to cry about. If only the French prelates would cry over abortion, family breakdown and all the other ills of French society. Alas the greatest threat to Catholicism in France according to her bishops is not secularism, it appears to be the Pope. Well!

I suppose I may be waisting my breath, but I believe we are seeing with the publication of these recent documents a certain parting of the sheep from the goats, wheat from the chaff and a division of those on God's left and those on His right. You see the differences, comments and reactions that we are seeing in the media from various Church quarters is not based on mere points of view, rather they spring from different beliefs. We simply do not have the same first principles. It is of little use to discuss the reasonableness of Papal documents if the person with whom you are discussing thinks it entirely unreasonable that the Pope should write documents, let alone that these documents be anything more than suggestion, that they be normative and indeed define and teach what the Church holds as true. Where do you start? If the latest novel idea is to be followed at all cost and the Pope to be resisted come what may, how is that the basis for dialogue. It sounds more like a shouting match that will finish in a fight.

And fight we must.

When an apology is not what's needed

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:56:00 +0000

Sorry is often never enough. It is especially inadequate when either the Church or a churchman is made to apologise. It would appear so in the latest mega-scandal to hit the Church. It's not sexual abuse, it's not Church-state relations and it's not even about a mass exodus of the faithful- it's about a priest telling some kids to get off the Church lawn.

Now allegedly he did use some pretty colourful vocabulary in telling the kids where to go, some rather unacceptable descriptions in telling them how to get there and some rather abrasive metaphors for why they should go there. None of which is acceptable, but really- trial by media?

Now if you or I were telling some skateboarding foul mouth kid to 'bugger off' (if either of us were Australian) nothing would come of it. I couldn't imagine that the next day your outburst would be highlighted on Youtube, your face and name splashed across every newspaper in the country and when you went to work the next day you would find that you were suspended from your job.

Apparently however, if you are a Catholic priest you would be. And you are.

Some of the greatest damage the media does to society is not just the rampant half-truths and social engineering, it's that it forces each one of us to exist in his own little world. We have become so scared by the media's portrayal of society that we don't have the courage to raise our heads or lift our voices in protest. We feel that everyone thinks about issues in the same way as the media portrays them and so we never have the courage to say 'what a lot of garbage!' We know it's rubbush, we just don't think anyone else does.

The most revealing thing about this whole business is that no one ever said that the kids using the front steps of a Church as a skateboard ramp where young children and old people walk or calling the priest a pedophile was wrong. Not one word of reprimand for the youths involved.

Such is the absurdity of the situation that you had the Victorian premier "unreservedly apologisng for the unacceptable comments." But to whom and on behalf of what authority? Is he apologising on behalf of the Almighty? The Church? Hmmm... Church-State relations...

Now I am not defending the language used by the priest, but I am certainly not going to let him swing at the end of the media's noose simply because it is another opportunity to surround the Church in controversy.

It takes a lot of courage to stand against the crowd of those too willing to swallow whatever is fed them. What is it telling us that those kids first line of attack against the priest was to call him a pedophile and yet no one said that was wrong, stereotypical, judgmental or even scandalous? Apparently that was OK. After all, all priests are pedophiles? Right? So what does it matter? Evidently it doesn't.

I do have one question though: where were all those critics when the priest needed a hand dealing with the situation? Sorry they were busy filming.

The lone state

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:19:00 +0000

The amount of evidence is becoming embarrassing. Yet again the Sydney Morning Herald has the latest installment of 'Don't touch my conscience while I am telling you what to do.'

Ms Lee Rhiannon of the Green party in Sydney NSW, the one who told Card Pell to keep his nose out of state business and wants him investigated for contempt of parliament, has expressed deep concern that the Church will not use WYD Sydney to promote condom use. I am sure she is outraged that the Church would not consider her proposal, given the standard of excellence she has set in Church-State relations.

We are all moved when we read:

The NSW Department of Health will have to go it alone if it wants to develop and disseminate any messages about safe sex, including information on HIV and sexually transmittable diseases, which it provided for the Sydney Olympics in 2000, the Gay Games and the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Poor little state. What a trooper!

We can talk until we are blue in the face, but people like Ms Rhiannon refuse to see a most basic point: that the Church is promoting the only safe-sex message there is- chastity. The probability of your child who lives a christian life of contracting an STD is the same as the propbability that the state of NSW will ever get AIDS! Their attitude shows more than disagreement with views held by believers, it is contemptuous of the fact that believers may have a view that is not the prevailing secular orthodoxy. The difference is not just in the message, it is in the principles of those who make the arguments.

How revealing that the State is incapable of distinguishing between a religious event like WYD and something like the Gay Mardis Gras or the Gay Games. Somewhere behind closed doors some people are whispering about WYD being an excuse for Catholic sex, drugs and rock n' roll. I wonder if they are secretly trying to see where they can buy tickets? I hope they keep their receipts for when they want their money back.

The Discriminator! What a lot of PIFAL

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:59:00 +0000

The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has recently sent a letter underlining his irrevocable support for the LGBT agenda. Please note with what cogent reasoning and iron clad arguments the governor outlines his position in supporting their agenda.

There is also a second letter which is not from the governor. But it could well be. It is slightly changed, with a minimal amount of cut and paste.

Can you spot the difference?

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

2007

Gay & Lesbian Alliance of the Central Coast

I am delighted to extend my warmest greetings to all who have gathered for this year’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Celebrations.

The last few years have seen a significant shift in society’s views towards the LGBT community. Icy intolerance is slowly melting away to reveal neighborhoods, organizations and individuals united by similar goals instead of divided by misunderstanding. Although much remains to be done to stop discrimination and bigotry, the progress that has been made is certainly a cause for celebration.

My thanks go to each and every one of you who work to promote the respect of all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Your efforts help people see that the critical issues we face as a state are common to all Californians. Most importantly, your work helps individuals take pride in who they are and find optimism for the future. I reaffirm my commitment to join you in building a California where everybody matters and every family counts. On behalf of all Californians, please accept my best wishes for a memorable event and every continued success.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

The amended version:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

2007

The Pedophile, Incestuous Families and Animal Love Alliance of the Central Coast

I am delighted to extend my warmest greetings to all who have gathered for this year’s Pedophile, Incestuous Families and Animal Love Pride Celebrations.

The last few years have seen a significant shift in society’s views towards the PIFAL community. Icy intolerance is slowly melting away to reveal neighborhoods, organizations and individuals united by similar goals instead of divided by misunderstanding. Although much remains to be done to stop discrimination and bigotry, the progress that has been made is certainly a cause for celebration.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Now when the governor sends the first letter he is a hero. If he were to send the second letter he probably would be impeached and thrown in gaol. Can you tell me why? I bet you he can't!

I wonder if I were to send a letter to the governor's office asking him to specify what types of moral practices he considers worthy of celebration, what kind of response would I get? I suppose it would go something like this:

Dear Mr Cherwell

We would be delighted in celbrating your journey of self-discovery. We invite you to share with us your own family story <insert own version>. A letter supporting your right to whatever will be sent at the governor's next convenience.

Thank you for sharing your right to celebrate with us. We look forward to sharing your vote in the next election.

Sincerest Regards

If I were to reply by saying, for example that I am a man married to a woman and we have three children, how long would I have to wait for a reason to celebrate?

Makes me glad I'm not a Californian.

While you were sleeping

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:36:00 +0000

The West's great difficulty in understanding why homosexuality is wrong is our failure to understand marriage, or to be precise our failure in marriage- divorce.

Just as much as divorce affects and destroys families so too does it effect or psyche. The first real effect of divorce is that we stopped understanding marriage for what it is, and began to see marriage as what we made it to be. We stopped living by the laws of marriage and started to make-up new ones to fit our purpose. The problem was that we forgot what that purpose was. Marriage is not what you make of it, marriage is what it makes you!

Marriage is based on difference. The natural difference between man and woman that when they become one through marriage, makes them both something that they weren't before- a husband and wife. Nothing revolutionary so far, it's just that we have forgotten what this means. Marriage makes a family because it is the other person who makes me something different. As a husband or wife you stand in a unique relationship to that other person, not simply because I want it, but rather because the difference between us combined with that freely chosen relationship means that I have a particular duty and responsibility to that other person, and that other person has the same level of responsibility towards me. In divorce we loose sight of that- we make up the rules, the game depends on us and that relationship I have with another is what I say it is and thus can end when I say it ends.

If marriage is what we say it is, then marriage can indeed become anything we want. This is how the completely inscrutable unreality of gay marriage gets into the picture.

Put simply, the idea of homosexual marriages gets things round the wrong way- and not just the most obvious things. We don't make up the rules as we see fit, rather the rules make us fit to live the life. We don't make up the responsibilities then make the relationship, rather it is that relationship that makes the rules. The rules of marriage rely on this difference between man and woman- only in union do they make sense.

This something new expressed as union is most easily seen in children. That reality of husband and wife and the making of something new is expressed most perfectly in children. Gay marriage is the exact opposite. It's make up the rules, get into a relationship yet there is no difference. That lack of difference is sterility.

No matter what we say or how we protest, so long as the reality of divorce means that we make a mockery of marriage, then the task of convincing the world that gay marriage is a further mockery is a battle that we are fighting uphill and into the wind.

No amnesty for its memebers

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:16:00 +0000

Amnesty International is an organisation fighting violence against humanity- at least against certain members of humanity. Soon to become a major international player in the promotion of abortion, there is controversy surrounding Amnesty's new policy. Some say that the answer is easy, if you object to abortion you just stop donating your time and money. It's a simple case of picking up your marbles and going home. Not so easy.

The response of those who want the change is straightforward- 'if you don't like it, we are terribly sorry, but the door is that clear glass thing to your right.' But what about all those people who believed in Amnesty's work and gave many years of service and contributed much hard earned cash to its coffers? The work and sacrifice of so many people that helped build Amnesty International and made it such a force for good has now, to put it bluntly, been violated. Many of those who supported Amnesty do not support abortion, yet the fruits of their work will now be used to promote it. Where's the justice in that?

You have an organisation that has been taking people's money and time under false pretences. Now while those who object can leave the organisation, they cannot take the fruits of their labour and their already spent donations with them. They leave behind them structures, resources and assets that will now be used for something they never supported.

Is this the justice Amnesty promotes? You see it's simple, you cannot violate one human right- the right to life- and think you won't violate the others. You take away the most fundamental of rights and you undermine and eventually destroy them all. Its a job lot!

Cry freedom, cry conscience

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:36:00 +0000

'My conscience, my choice' is the mantra of contemporary moral relativism. Politicians demand it, the press defend it and some theologians even make it a dogma. The recent controversy over the abortion debate and the role of politicians both in the US and the UK ended in the usual mud slinging match of modern journalism. I should imagine that such a tactic is deliberate, it gets your mind off the truth.

The end result, as decided by the press, is that politicians have the right to freedom of conscience and should be allowed to legislate in peace without any external pressure that does not come from the media itself. The only ones allowed to have any say in the matter are journalists. After all, they are the prophets and priests of the 'new faith'.

The New York Times has another article on the freedom of conscience, this time from the other side of the fence. It seems that the politicians now are forcing pharmacists to go against their conscience and making them prescribe the morning after pill, widely known to be a chemical abortion.

How quickly things change, arguments forgotten and the power of coercion used when the shoe is on the other foot. In this case its a boot that is being put into the side of pharmacists. These same politicians who told the bishops to get their grubby crosier bearing hands of their conscience, are now directly forcing pharmacists to act against theirs.

Of course one is comforted by the fact that the Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire 'feels' that an extensive public process was adequate for legislation disallowing the pharmacists to conscientiously object. One is so relieved that the Governor's conscience has not been violated and that her feelings haven't been hurt. It's a pity she wouldn't extend the same courtesy to the pharmacists.

In the world of moral relativism it would seem that even the rights of conscience are relative. Obviously not all consciences are created equal.

As if to prove my point

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:46:00 +0000

It doesn't take long before the media gives you some reason to think your suspicion about its approach to the Church is well founded. Just today, hot on the heals of the Vatican's open embrace of carbon neutrality we have another example of 'religious greening' courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald.

Now, I have no problem with anyone legitimately trying to reduce his carbon footprint, my objection is that the Church is inviting the press to ignore her. 'What does he mean by that?', you say. 'I thought your gripe was with the fact that the Church was in the press?' Not so fast!

My point is this. The coverage that the media gives to the Church is appalling. Not only slanted and designed to present the Church surrounded in controversy, but orchestrated so as to focus people's attention away from the heart of the issue onto some peripheral topic of the media's choosing. My disquiet is not simply over the 'bum rap', rather that the media are making the Church play by their rules and we are helping them do it.

The SMH is notoriously anti-Church. If you want proof- just search its archives. The only article not critical of the Church will be the one the Church's conversion to 'greendom.' Now if the Church gets precious little coverage, can we afford to have what little it gets turn the attention away from what is important? With critical debates in Australia about stem cell research, abortion out of control and with WYD 2008 just one year away, the only positive articles we find are about hybrid vehicles and solar panels. I repeat, I have no problem with it, I just don't think want it to be the most important item on the agenda. Nor the only one.

We cannot play into the press' hands and help them to take the attention from what counts. The Church is not relevant when it is green, the Church is evergreen, something ancient and something new- relevant in season as well as out of it!

Now you see it, now you don't

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:24:00 +0000

One of the difficult things in a busy day is to remember everything that you need to do and everything that has happened. How many times do we lose track of the important things, let alone the marginal ones? Well, it's on that basis that the media does business and dictates to you and I what we should think about certain situations in the world.

If you remember, a few weeks ago there was a huge outcry (and by huge I mean everyone working for an Australian newspaper) about Cardinal Pell's comments to catholic politicians regarding their moral duty to respect and defend human life when deciding public policy. This lead to one of the most violent outbreaks of obvious anti-religious and anti-catholic vitriol in recent times. One member of the New South Wales (Pell's state) legislature vowed to have Card Pell hauled before a commission in order to enquire into his comments "that they may be in contempt of parliament." (FYI for the member of the house- I think his comments were contemptuous of the opinions of some parliamentarians). Anyway, the whole Church-State argument was dug-up again and paraded around like a golden calf. Now, no problems with the idea of the separation, just with how they like to use it as a weapon against the Church. The basic idea is that 'good churchmen' (as defined by the state) are seen and not heard and would never dream of saying anything against the infallible opinions of politicians as they might hurt their conscience. The Church was clearly told to keep its distance from affairs of state. (The article was published in the Sydney Morning Herald: Pell Investigated for Possible Contempt, 16/06/2007).

Just yesterday the same newspaper ran a story about the bishop that the Chinese state had appointed in the official catholic church in China. And you know what was missing-- not one mention of Church-State separation. Apparently the golden calf was in for some repairs that day and wasn't available for public viewing.

People, that's how the media operate. One day it's a show-down over the ONLY issue that matters, the next day it's the only issue that is forgotten. Now you see it, now you don't.

A question of due process

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:59:00 +0000

Baroness Cumberledge's Report about the Church's policy on child protection and its implementation in the UK has recently been made public. The Baroness' report highlights what has been the principle concern from day one over the Church's reaction to the scandals and which persists today- a lack of respect for due process.

The report highlighted two things in particular, both of which fail to respect those processes established by civil and canon law.

Some dioscean bishops have delegated their personal responsibility in the matter to COPCA (the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and vulnerable Adults). COPCA is an office meant to support the bishop in his role as pastor- not substitute him in his office as ordinary. In an era of delegation and outsourcing it must be difficult for the bishops to recall that Christ never gave them the option of backing out of their responsibilities. After all, if I remember my Bible correctly, Christ did not come down from the Cross when they asked him too. Apparently COPCA was not around then to offer an alternative.
The second is that there is an ever increasing rift between the bishops and their priests as it would appear that bishops are far too ready to offer up their priests as victims on the secular altar of sacrifice. The report states that there is an apparent lack of respect for the most basic of human rights- the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (and those rights associated with that most basic one). Again it takes real courage to stand behind a man accused of such crimes, especially when the flashes start going off. What is important to remember as they bay for blood, that the accused man is innocent until proven guilty, despite what the BBC may say.

Basically it amounts to the bishops doing a better jobs at protecting themselves rather than the innocent. It is little wonder that we have such difficulties in defending the unborn and the weak. The first thing sacrificed in an age of godlessness are always the innocent.

What difference does a quotation make???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:03:00 +0000

One of the most entertaining things to have happened in the last few weeks has been to watch the rearguard action of the free-thinkers society over the issue of the recent motu proprio and the CDF's document regarding the Church. It seems that these recent documents have sent the society and its members into a flap and looking for their copies of Free Thinking for Dummies.

I find it incredible that those children of the 60s and 70s who found the promised land of free-thought are now invoking the teaching authority of the Church to back-up their own "independently held views". After all, the sign of a great idea is that "I" think it. Those who did nothing but criticise the Church in order to bring about 'the change' now appeal to her precisely so things won't. No sooner had both documents been printed then the free-thinkers society was busy taking their case to the secular press. And what did they use to argue their point- reason? philsophy? theology? the Bible? No, of course not! It was Vatican II. It must be a sign of God's super-abundance the number of opinions one can find in the documents of the Council when left in the hands of some theologians.

An article in the Tablet by Nicholas Lash published in this week's edition (July 21) is a fine example of the old theological three-card trick. I believe the thrust of the article was to show how the current document on the Church and those of Vatican II are at odds. I quote from the by-line:

The Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith has issued a document aimed at clarifying the distinction between the concepts of 'Church' and 'ecclesial community'. But it is difficult to see how this latest document harmonises with the key texts of the Second Vatican Council.

With such an introduction, one is prepared for a gloves-off theological show-down that will highlight through a detailed analysis of the relevant documents where such conflict is derived. If that's what you think, then you are like me going to be sadly disappointed. Dr. Lash in his article gives one quotation from Lumen Gentium and none from the CDF's document. And even the one quotation that he uses is rather revealing not for what it says, but rather for where it stops. Here is Dr. Lash's quote:

The account of the ways in which different kinds and conditions of people already live within this "People's" scope runs all the way from those (begin quote LG: Editor) "fully incorporated into the Society of the Church, who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her and through union with her visible structure are joined to Christ" (end quote LG: Editor) through other Christians "consecrated by baptism, through which they are united with Christ," and who "recognise and recieve other sacramnets within their own Chrucg or ecclesial coommunities", and so on to the Jews, the Muslims and those "who have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace".

Here is the full quote from Lumen Gentium 14:

They are full incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. (Emphasis added)

My, my, my- what a difference a quote makes!

Now what was Dr. Lash's point in making this half quote? That what counts is that we are all 'one people', that it doesn't really matter what religion you belong to or ecclesial structure you live under? Whatever his point, it doesn't seem so clearly supported by Lumen Gentium.

I long for the days when the free-thinkers will cease trying to further their agenda by relying on people's ignorance- that no one would actually bother to read the Council documents. However, as Dr. Lash puts it, 'any theologically trained nose will twitch suspiciously' at certain ideas- well my nose was turned up when I read the article and I think it had more to do with the brown smelly stuff he was shovelling.

Last thing- Dr Lash's reference to a holy atheist being closer to God's plan than a wicked pope (of course an innocent example) must have been meant to offer a fraternal correction to the Pope in this matter that Dr Lash so piercingly analysied. News for you doctor- I doubt the Pope reads the Tablet. Last I rememeber he was a Catholic. And not stupid.

A toothless tiger

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:46:00 +0000

One must ask when deference stops and pandering begins. The recent comments of our Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone regarding the prayers for the conversion of the Jews seems to have crossed that line. The cardinal's response is simple, if the prayer offends, we take it out. Unthinking is often the prelude to persecution. Now no one wants to unjustly offend anyone, but what is the Cardinal thinking?

If we stop praying for the conversion of Jews because they are offended, what are we admitting about our Faith and what precedent are we establishing for religious behaviour? Should we stop praying for sinners so that we won't appear judgemental? Should we stop praying for our politicians and civil leaders so as to not interfere in Church-state separation? Should I stop praying for my neighbour lest I invade his privacy? Should I stop praying for myself lest I be accused of self-indulgence? The list is endless and equally stupid- and above all dangerous.

Maybe I expect too much from Church leaders, but I don't think I am asking too much in expecting them to lead- to at least do the job. In an age of the sacred cow of tolerance we must not say anything that would offend- however if the Gospel is anything to go by, Christianity is ill at ease in a world that tolerates only what the world itself dictates.

Carbon foot in your back-side

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:54:00 +0000

While most people in Europe and the Northern hemisphere in general will be taking advantage of the month long August holiday, ironically heading towards warmer climates, there will be many people in August who will be working up a sweat about certain 'global problems.'

On September 8 there will be a meeting of APEC in Sydney, Australia which is being billed as a potential show-down between the worlds two biggest players in the game of greenhouse emissions- China and the US.

If any of you have been following the whole 'greenhouse thing', and I mean follow it as opposed to being lead by the discussion, you would no doubt have seen a certain shift in journalistic emphasis. The greenhouse emissions problem was originally sold to us under the banner of the big mean corporate bad guy who was selling out our future just to make quicker and bigger bucks. The 'sale' of the greenhouse project needed a bad guy, and what better bad guy then the corporate bad guy whom no one ever knows and about whom everyone can be suspicious. It also fed into another typical human emotion- relief- 'thank God it's not my fault!'

What started out as an exercise of corporate criticism slowly mutated into the problem of the carbon footprint. It went from being a problem of big business to the business of the big problem or people- you and I. We went from berrating the bad to being the bad guy. Again this fed another human emotion- panic.

Now this may not be a problem, but it seems that the Holy See has bought into the whole "greenhouse carbon-neutral environmentally responsible" thing with a vengeance. After all , the Vatican is the only carbon neutral state in the world! That's a relief. I was worried the Church was spending resources on families, the homeless and the weak. Cynical you might say- isn't what's best for the world best for the people? Well maybe, but not necessarily. And certainly not when there is more to the story than what they are telling you.

Thanks to the Sierra Club we have all been enlightened as to the real problem of global warming. It's not the problem of greed, consumerism, pollution or questionable multi-billion dollar business practices! It's not that people consume to much rather that there are too many people consuming. It's not the fat West that is the problem, rather its the Africans and their dirty technology. Of course their answer is not to give Africa better technology, the answer is give Africa less Africans! This must come as a great relief to the Sierra club and its members- no need to worry about subscriptions, after all there isn't much of a membership base in Africa. How easy it would be to solve the world's problems if the Africans would only just hold their breath! How long you say- until they no longer emit any CO2!

The dominant version of the environmental cause is unfortunately tied to an ideology that is not compatible with the Gospel. It is risky when some actions of the Church seem to support, even remotely, what is another arm of the culture of death. The Church must act with great prudence, lest the efforts of some of her sons be used against us. I understand that sharing a concern doesn't mean being married to the cause, however we must be careful because the focus of the argument is changing- corporate greed, the greed of peoples, people.

We all too often give our enemies the means with which they can attack us!

You didn't see it coming???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 06:57:00 +0000

It's often hard to get perspective on different media stories when those who are feeding you the information want you to understand something less than the whole truth. Most media bias does not show up in anything as obvious as complete fabrications of the truth. Although as the media gets bolder and thus less accountable, we are beginning to see some fairly feeble attempts at unbiased journalism.

What happens is that the media publishes articles that don't seem to be directly related in a way that helps you to think about a certain situation from a particular perspective without actually being aware that you are doing so. In a sense the media predisposes you to certain conclusions that just happen to appear in some article that ties it all together at a later time.

Now I am not trying to whet the appetite of conspiracy theorists, rather I am saying that the people who report the news are not always doing so without a particular slant. You might say that is the pot calling the kettle black. Well I don't report the news, I comment it. And my catholic's perspective is the first thing you see when you open the site. I am not hiding anything.

Let's take three articles and see what conclusion they naturally lead to. I just did a search on the BBC- three common terms reported in the media: catholic, sex and homophobia and checked what came up under the heading 'recent articles'.

Let's take article number one.

Now most of us are disturbed to hear that children are suffering violence in school. No child should be subject to abuse in any form- that's a given amongst decent folk. Yet alarmingly children are being subject to disturbing forms of abuse. Our natural reaction is outrage and we want someone (the government) to do something about it. What, we don't know- we just want it stopped.

One of the most disturbing aspects of this article is that the reader is being set-up. Notice that all the juicy words are in the first few lines "children", "physical attack", "verbal threats" and the knock-out punch "death threats." Now that they have any decent parent/ person sufficiently horrified and on their side, they throw in this rather vague quote in the middle so it's not too noticeable:

"'Even if gay pupils are not experiencing bullying, they are learning in an environment where homophobic language and comments are common place', the report said."

By now your mind has rather stopped at the thought that children, possibly one day even yours, are at risk. Leaving aside the whole 'gay pupil' thing and how on earth they know from a survey which pre-pubescent or teenage children can make up their minds about such a thing when most don't even know what they want to do next week. However, the comment doesn't specify what forms of homophobic language are offensive- i.e. homosexuality is a sin? Homosexuality doesn't correspond to God's plan for men and women? Homosexual marriage is immoral? Hmm... it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, doesn't it?

Now we are not told anything about those doing the research, what criteria they used or how they went about their survey. We're just told that they did it for the kids- so we should trust them, right? Well, maybe. Or maybe not.

Let's take article number two.

This article is less remarkable since it just comes out and names the principle perpetrator of homophobia- the Catholic Church. In language fit for post WWII celebrations, this new law is hailed as "a major step forward in ensuring the dignity, respect and fairness for all." Against whom- against the big bad homophobic Catholic Church whose current policy openly discriminates against those loving and caring gay couples who just want to complete their family with the love of a child.

Let's take article number three.

The article of the moment and with the topic of the day- that whopping great pay out over the clergy sexual abuse claim- $600,000,000 must buy you a lot of buggery. In most people's minds that sounds like a lot of guilt. And what's it all over- child sexual abuse.

Let's recap the central themes of these three articles:

homophobic violence against children,
homophobic institution,
institution guilty of violence against children.

What conclusions do you draw? It's as simple as one, two, three...

What about your average Catholic???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:00 +0000

The recent shift in 'catholic concern' brought on by a bout of political correctness within some elements of the Church has meant that your average Joe and Mary Catholic have been feeling a little left out of all these reasons to 'celebrate their faith.'

While some sons of the Church bend over backwards to accommodate the feminists, LGBT, the environmentalists and whatever minority group that puts up its hand to be heard, Mr and Mrs Catholic don't get a look in. You know, all those people who are busy working, paying off the mortgage, struggling to make ends meet, raise the kids and take out the garbage 'aint feelin the love of their local pastor.' He's a bit like the Spirit of God- he's everywhere but no one seems to know where he is. But is he listening?

Question- if local churches had to survive on the donations from the minorities with which they are obsessed (particularly those who have the money- i.e. the gays, the feminists and the environmentalists) how long do you think they would last? You know all those mums and dads out there who aren't being heard are the ones who keep the ship afloat. Please God their faith will prevent them from doing the obvious.

Now there are many excellent priests who aren't trying to do the 'next big thing'. They are really struggling just to do the normal things with pastoral excellence. They preach on the hard subjects because they know that the love of God is demanding. But they don't do it just so that they can be heard, they do it so that those who hear the Truth may be happy. A good priest knows life is tough and at times seemingly a bit beyond us. He knows that not because he read it somewhere or because someone had to tell him, but because his own life has truly taken on the form of the Cross. His life is always shaped and moulded by the difficulties of the lives of his flock. No true priest ever refuses to carry the same burdens as his sheep. How could he- he carries his sheep on his shoulders.

So mums, dads and clergy, let's remember a simple truth- we need our priests just as much as they need us. As Newman said "the Church would look rather silly without the laity." And as Jesus Christ said- "the sheep without the shepherd are easy prey for the wolves."

Scripture against the Pope???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:08:00 +0000

I may be a little late on this one, but there are still a few things that need to be said.

A recent article appeared in the CNN religious affairs column written by Roland S Martin, a some time contributor to CNN's in depth analysis of whatever. The article is a reply to the CDF's recent document pertaining to the doctrine on the Church. I must say for someone who was a catholic and has now seen the light, particularly through the light of Scripture, he has discovered surprisingly little.

Roland's first point is that the Bible was something hidden within the Catholic Church. Apparently he was hand-fed a diet of Catholicism that somehow didn't have much Bible, despite being a regular Mass attendee. I suppose the priest didn't read out the Old Testament, Psalm, New testament and Gospel every Sunday? Or perhaps he just whispered them?

Anyway the point being that he had to go to the protestants to read the Bible. Ok.

What happens to people like Roland and countless other protestants who walked out of the Church, is not that they found the Bible in these other denominations, rather they found that the Bible was the only thing they had left. Roland didn't leave the Church and find the Bible, he left the Church and found that the Bible was the only thing he took with him. And that's where the whole Protestant Bible thing falls apart- they have the Bible because they took it, not because they found it.

The fact that there is a Bible in the first place can only be because there is a Church. Christ and the Apostles began to do, preach and baptise well before any of it was written down. It was only after that the Church reflecting on who she was, the Bride of Christ, that she started to recognise herself in Scripture and began reading and mediating upon the Word of God as it was handed down from the authors until the present day. To separate Church and Scripture is like trying to tear the arms off a man- sure the man can still walk, but was that the way he was meant to live?

It's always been a mystery to me how the Protestants say they discovered the Bible- where on God's green earth did they dig it up? The Bible didn't fall from heaven but was written by the Church and for the Church. And just like the Church the Bible is not something we can make up for ourselves. There is a Bible only because there is a Church. And that as Roland so bluntly put it is why "the Pope made his decision to restate the primacy of the Catholic Church."

However unlike Roland's guess, the Pope's decision is not based on the Church 'owning' Christ, but rather on the fact that to Christ belongs the Church.

Appeasement everywhere???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:59:00 +0000

It's not like me to be critical (Ehhm yes). But I have got to wonder about some of the statements that are issued by the Vatican Press Office.

Now it is a short article and the situation of the Church in China is obviously a very touchy, delicate and complicated situation that cannot be summed up in a few words. But isn't that all the more reason to choose very carefully the wording, timing and content of any message that comes from the Vatican about China?

The spirit of 'mutual dialogue' that has such a stranglehold on Vatican diplomacy at the moment, is something like a child's attempt at appeasing a school bully- we allow the Chinese to fire bullets at us and we respond by throwing a target up into the air, praying to God that the target will somehow hit the bullet preferably before the bullet hits us.

Now God works in mysterious ways, and none more so than in curial diplomacy. But such an attitude of "let's hope they call and ask for our permission (the target) for a bishop they have actually 'elected', confirmed and probably ordained (the bullet) without even dropping us an email (the throw)" seems to be taking the idea of accommodation, dialogue or whatever other ideas are floating around St. Peter's square a little too far.

Such diplomatic patience seems to belie a fundamental ignorance on the part of the curia about the nature of communist China- they really don't like us!

So what are you saying, it doesn't work???

noreply@blogger.com (Cherwell) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:11:00 +0000

Here is another piece of journalistic brilliance from the Sydney Yawning Herald. Apparently they too have discovered that the absolute majority of HIV infection comes from homosexual activity and heterosexual promiscuity. Well, you could knock me over with a feather!

Homosexuality, promiscuity... danger... let me think for a minute... I seem to have heard that same idea somewhere else... ahh yes!!! Now I remember- the Catholic Church.

It's funny when you say the same thing for two thousand years no one listens. You put it in a newspaper and everyone nods their head and claps their hands. I wonder if in that survey they did a test on the number of HIV cases that come from chaste lives? Husbands and wives loving each other faithfully and young teens committed to living as Christians- how many infections from them? I might need a calculator...

Instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that a promiscuous lifestyle is never going to be safe, they try and shift the blame to a lack of knowledge. You have got to be kidding me?

"The rise also raised questions about the effectiveness of current HIV prevention strategies, said professor Kaldo, who called for new ways of promoting health messages to the gay community."

Please, why don't they try the message- 'STOP!" A novel idea.

I can't go into an airport, a pub or even the library without someone thrusting a condom in my face. They're free, they're available and they're everywhere, except you know where...

Some people need a reality check- the 'condom mentality' doesn't work because the phenomenon of promiscuity is not something the kids get up to just because they are kids. Such a lifestyle brings with it an attitude of irresponsibility to everything. If you begin to treat someone else as an object it is not too long before you realise that others have been doing the same thing to you. I don't care about others, others don't care about me... 'I JUST DON'T CARE AT ALL.' This is the real cause of the problem, NOT THAT THEY JUST DON"T KNOW.

The other thing is that condom use obviously requires some kind of discipline, something that the cultural engineers of death don't actually tell you. The choice is not what they tell you it is- between the easy and the impossible- it's a choice between life and death.