King Hazza

Frank Brennan is a fixture and fitting within the Vatican, and as such is required to support the Pope, who is infallible in all matters he turns his hand to.

Should Brennan voice a discordant note, one that does not fit the Vatican template, then he is speaking out of turn.

His views, as an individual, are non-existent.

He is part of, he is, the Vatican.

Either you agree with the Pope, or you don't.

There is no room for dissenting views.

Those who pretend to be Catholic, without backing every last utterance of the Pope, are kidding themselves.

Brennan is one of those.

I can never understand why Churches do not pay tax, after all they are money making businesses, just like the local pizza shop. They like to make out they are some sort of 'special case' in the community. I have no problem with those who want to pray to some sort of god and read old books, but pay your taxes!

Dear King Hazza,
this is actually a rather deep and revealing question. It seems to paint Frank Brennan as an old-world philosopher(theologian), an Aristotelian or Aquinasite rather than Humean or Humanist. I'm not going to bother to elaborate. Suffice it to say that how people answer your astute question will place them in one camp or the other. Of course the usual practice is to go with the flow. Hopefully a few will come forward and nail their colours to the mast. I shall lead by example.

I'm not a Christian, but what do I think of Frank Brennan's stances below:

-refugee advocate: tick
-indigenous rights advocate: tick
-somewhat neutral on bill of rights but chaired commission (more info)
-anti-abortion: tick
-anti-euthanasia: tick

These are qualified answers.

An elderly regular church-going Catholic friend of ours all of a sudden has become stridently vocal in her anti-Green stance. She is not usually given to commenting much on politics, but on the last three occasions in my company has brought up the subject of the "danger" of the Greens gaining more power in this election.
Seems like the Cardinal's message is having an impact on the likes of our friend, who wouldn't for a moment question the wisdom of those in positions of power within the Catholic church.

Quite so Poirot... gormless nitwits, sheep, mindless nongs, easily led, cannon fodder.

.

Dear Ron in Bennelong,

.

It's nice to hear that "Gillard wants a Republic when the Queen's reign ends".

Presumably, that will be when Gillard is no longer in office.

I guess, in a way, that's a relief if, as you suggest, what she has in mind is some sort of puppet president with no political power, all the rest remaining as is: a prime minister that some political party can put the skids under to protect its personal interests if and when it feels they are in danger.

As they say, Ron, democracy is like sand in an oyster: a little produces a pearl, too much kills the animal.

I am sure none of us oysters would want that, would we?

.

Dear King Hazza,

.

I just thought I should draw the attention of my fellow compatriots to the fact that Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, is both our constitutional Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

I guess that disqualifies "the lucky country" as a secular State.

As it does not seem right to me to request that Her Gracious Majesty should resign her religious functions, I thought I could, at least, suggest that we transform the national status of Australia from that of a Constitutional Monarchy to that of a Republic.

A federal election seems to me to be an excellent occasion for this important topic to be debated and put to the vote. Why shunt such a major topic off to a side track?

The country obviously needs a new constitution anyway.

The whole thing could be done in one foul swoop, rather than wait for a series of complicated referenda that nobody understands, that nobody wants and that costs time and money.

But, if that's what everyone wants, let's mutiply it all out, including threads on OLO.

.