First of all, I think that Pell is quite right to speak his mind on this, and on any other matter.

The fact that it places him firmly in the boat alongside Hilaly is nothing to do with religious differences, and everything to do with the attitude that "[insert religion here] is right, and you will obey or face punishment".

In my view, it simply magnifies the problem of having religion as a driving force behind politicians. If it comes to the crunch, whom do you represent, the constituency that elected you, or your religious beliefs?

The morality or ethics of cloning are indistinct, except to people who make it their business to dictate to others along the lines of their own belief system. Real people, thinking people, can have reservations, but can also see benefits.

The church has never been particularly charitable in such discussions. Prompted by a line in the paper this morning, I found this:

"In 1846 James Simpson, a Scottish physician promoted the use of chloroform to relieve pain during childbirth. This was immediately opposed by the Church, citing Genesis 3:16 "...I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children". The avoidance of pain was seen as thwarting God's will."

How kind. How... compassionate.

From the same source:

"Early in the 17th Century, physicians in France and Great Britain promoted inoculations to prevent smallpox. Theologians were quick to respond. Rev. Edward Massy in England preached a sermon blaming the distemper experienced by Job in the Bible upon an inoculation by Satan. Other clergy preached that the technique was being promoted by sorcerers and atheists. Smallpox was regarded as "a judgment of God on the sins of the people......to avert it is but to provoke him more". Inoculation was 'an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.'"

I think we are having another one of those "whom do we trust" moments.

GP, outside of China, no-one is "pro abortion". They are pro choice. It is the difference between dictating what a woman should do with her body, and giving her the option to choose for herself.

One of the most interesting arguments to my mind put forward by Dr Jocelynne Scutt is that of the responsibility of ICAC to proceed and charge Pell with corruption and bribery under the ICAC act. To reiterate, Dr Scutt’s points.

1. He is exhibiting corrupt conduct because he ‘adversely affects, or could adversely affect public officials (politicians) in a public authority (Parliament) because it concerns bribery.
2. Bribery which involves the offer of something valuable to persuade a person to help or do something for the person attempting to do the bribing.

Pell is saying that he will not allow those politicians that do not translate his religious doctrine into government policy - communion. Communion is the ritual of receiving the “body and blood of Christ”– this is the most valuable concept both materially and spiritually according to Roman Catholicism. And to those that agree to translate the political line of this powerful church figure into government policy this most powerful and valuable component that of receiving the “body and blood of Christ” then they will be allowed to receive this most valuable prize. And the prize for Pell, Ratzingers imprimatur and possible anointing for the biggest prize - that of controlling the biggest and wealthiest global multi national organisation; The Roman Catholic Church.

That Pell is denying the very essence of the core belief paradigm to those that do not obey - to my mind is clearly a case of bribery and corruption and should be immediately dealt an ICAC blow.

Mr Pell like the rest of us can hold to his beliefs and write to his representives under blank letterhead. On the other hand, the Cardinal Doctor Pell should respect the separation of Church and State. Theocracy has long been the enemy of democracy, wherein the eklectos in the Church interpret codes, creeds and doctrines for the hoi polloi.

GP, I loved your posting with its reference to Emilys List...there is no way Jocelynne Scutt will answer you on that. She should just say "touche" and leave it at that! But she can't afford to because for years she has been the masthead for pro abortion feminists (No. Not pro "choice". It's a "child" not a choice) This is what her column is really all about..stifling all opposition to abortion and related attacks on the dignity of human life especially from some one as prominent as Cardinal Pell. As a paid up and passionate member of the Australian Human Rights Society I am particularly offended when I read of abortion advocates like Jocelynne Scutt styling themselves as "Human Rights" lawyers (activist or whatever) The first human right is the right to life Jocelynne. Just try exercising the right to vote, to a reasonable wage, to own property ..or any other right.... if you are dead!

Hi all,
GP is well within his right to make his PoV in the public forum.

However, he 'does not have the right' to back his PoV with a threat or inducemnt(no matter what it may be) against anyone failing to submit to it.

That to me is the crux of the problem here as was with Imam Al-Hallali.