Pell has every right to talk about the moral codes of his church. We have every right to ridicule people who take their moral direction from their imaginary friend.

Mr. Perrottet, I find the approach of another legal mind (Jocelynne Scutt in this issue of OLO) far more convincing than your special pleading.

You ask a number of questions. I would like to respond to two of them.

"When one considers all the influences over our own consciences through life, are the teachings of the longest-running institution, which has had some of history’s greatest minds at its helm such a bad influence?"

Yes most of them are very bad. For example - When a thousand people in Southern Africa die each day from AIDS the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the use of condoms is sinful. That's a very bad influence.

"If you are not religious, do you consider that your moral compass is better aligned than those of Catholics?"

Of course I do! Having lived in Ireland for 5 years and in a number of Middle Eastern Countries for 3 years, I'm certain of it. A person's "moral compass" is much more likely to be skewed by faith and dogma than by reason

Alex Perrottet is being a bit cute here. Cardinal Pell "is simply talking about his Church and some of its members." He couldn't possibly have any intention "of venturing into politics".

"The Cardinal is protecting his doctrine," pleads Alex, "not projecting it onto society." Is that why he consciously chose to make his strong views known through a media release and on national television instead of at the pulpit?

The Cardinal’s media release said, inter alia, “A matter of such dramatic ethical and social import should not be rushed through Parliament in a week,” Cardinal Pell said. “The general public and our parliamentary representatives have been given little or no information or warning about this legislation. We should not blindly follow the lead of other parliaments in passing such unethical legislation."

Well knock my socks off Alex – that sounds like venturing into politics to me.

Dear Stan1 – I know this argument ain’t about aids in Africa, but I couldn’t resist.

While I don’t care at all whether Pell runs for PM or not, the old argument that Catholic Church teaching on contraception is at fault for deaths in Africa is in the running for the greatest ignorance of the modern world.

The Catholic Church believes its doctrine is correct, and those who follow it don’t get AIDS – pretty good influence I would think.

Uganda is 41.9% Catholic. It has the most effective AIDS program. It is known as ABC—Abstinence, Be Faithful, or Use Condoms—(for high risk populations like prostitutes). The Church teaches A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E. It’s possible! Then it teaches F-A-I-T-H-F-U-L-N-E-S-S. It’s possible too!

As a result of that program, Uganda has the lowest rate of infection of any African country.

You can’t disregard the Church teaching, get AIDS and then go crying back to complain – what a silly attitude.

Another ignorance shines through your blog – that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. While there are some parts of the Catholic faith that can only be accepted with a blind faith (like the doctrine of the Trinity, for example), most of it is completely understood by human reason and a good deal of people around the world understand it and adhere to it. Nothing wrong with accepting something with blind faith either – you probably do it yourself every day…

The politician of faith should pursue an outcome on the interests of the WIDER community.

Religion is legitimized Superstition.

Remember how much the Catholics persecuted Galileo about "flat earth". Science has always been at the vanguard of reason and enlightenment.

Its not different to the media campaign recently about Muslim cabbies refusing blind peoples guide dogs.

Inner-Sydney etc etc should get his/her facts right.

Read something of the history and philosophical foundations of the Galileo affair to get a more accurate idea.

Science has always been the vanguard of reason and enlightenment has it? Do you mean "science" as knowledge or the empirical sciences which have given us many good things and many deadly things. A worry is that "scientific" fundamentalism, as we are seeing it, does not like to be challenged.

Excuse me? Scientific fundamentalism?

Sorry, but if there is some weird retardation of science being practiced somehwere, that does not like to be challenged, I'd like to 'see' it, as you do. Seems as though if it didnt accept challenges, it wouldn't be science, by any definition I know of the term.

Science, by definition, demands to be challenged. That is the process through which it makes progress. There is no stubborn belief in science, and scientists are always ready to change their mind. It only takes one thing for that to happen: evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is quite the opposite - unchanging no matter what discoveries about the world are made. That is a very dangerous and stupid way to be.

The most amazing gift humans have been given, the gift we use every day, the gift you are using to read and type right now, is that of critical thinking and reason. Science is simply the natural extension of that method of thinking. Faith, by contrast, demands suspension of critical thinking. Even though you rely on evidence and logic for every other problem you encounter in your life, the moment it comes to possibly the most important questions (that of the nature of the universe and life), that process is abandonded.

What sounds more fundamentalist to you?

It always strikes me as deeply paradoxical when religiously sympathetic “thinkers” begin their wonderfully rational arguments from profoundly irrational premises (e.g., that there exists an omnipotent being that pervades our entire existence and universe, providing unequivocal answers to questions of truth, beauty and goodness – fundamentally HUMAN concepts). If you, Mr Perrottet, have any regard for questions of legitimacy when it comes to making logical deductions and inductions, you may want to spend some time thinking critically about your premises first. Otherwise you risk fostering a culture in which dogmatic assertions are accepted – and not challenged as they should be – as regular fixtures of debate. The overwhelming problem with faith (all faith) is that it demands – by its very nature – the suspension of critical thought; that is to say, the suspension of rationality. Instead of fostering a culture in which people are encouraged to ask critical questions, such as why a small cluster of cells should warrant anything near the same ethical consideration as a sentient adult human (or non-human animal) cable of feeling and suffering, people are encouraged to blindly accept the word of doctrine. For Christians, doctrine is based on an almost incomprehensibly naïve belief: namely, that the rambling proclamations of a man who lived 2000 years ago to the effect that he was the son of an omnipotent being were and remain true! What kind of premise is this to begin logical argument?! You can’t pick and choose when to be rational when you’re living in Phantasmagoria. You certainly can’t decide to stand on your logical high horse and rationally deconstruct the bizarre premises of other religions, such as Scientology. And you even forfeit your right to criticise the actions of religiously inspired terrorists. For the beliefs of Scientologists and Martyrs, like all good Christians, are simply a matter of faith, not reason. So until, Mr Perrottet, you gain the courage to stand on your own two feet, think through ethical questions philosophically and question the logical and ethical validity of your own deepest faith, your wonderfully logical arguments will forever remain self-defeating.

hmm, three articles on the same thing, albeit different viewpoints. Wonder which one will win the post count?

Faith vs. Reason. An old argument but not exactly a total dichotomy.
Everyone has some degree of faith in something, even if it isn't a God. One would have to know all there is to know about everything in order not to have a belief or some faith somewhere.
So the anti-faith scientism worshippers should not feel so inflated, nor should the holier-than-thou followers of a sub-division of a sub-denomination think themselves superior either.
One who reasons generally doesn't argue against the faith of another without having investigated it themselves. One who has faith generally does not feel threatened by those who endeavour to reason.

The church has every right to participate in public debate about key policy issues, especially those with a moral flavour.

The church also has the right to counsel and correct its own members in matters of conscience and faith.

Where is crosses the line inexcusably, in my view, is in using the second prerogative to try to coerce members with political influence into furthering its agenda in the public policy arena, especially if this runs against their own consciences. This is the church at its bullying, authoritarian narrow worst.

Members of Parliament have their own obligations to represent their constituents, promote policies they believe right and proper and make decisions based on the community interest. They are emphatically not in Parliament to represent their faith, whatever that may be. By trying to subvert these obligations and responsibilities Pell is trying to make his flock behave unethically.

“Catholics who deny basic tenets of their faith do not have very well-formed consciences.” What breathtaking arrogance, as well as setting up beautifully a circular argument – any conscience which contradicts dogma is a faulty conscience and cannot be relied upon.

'Donnie' provides an apt demonstration of shaky philosophical premises, adopting the agnostic, compromising, fence-sitting, 'I’m so open-minded and ultra-tolerant of all types of knowledge so I must be right” approach – though I’m still going to use logic and rationality to argue my case because deep down I know that this is the only form of argument that isn’t self-defeating.

Your core idea that “One would have to know all there is to know about everything in order not to have a belief or some faith somewhere” is deeply flawed and indicative of the typical agnostic mindset. You think that because one cannot disprove the existence of God or whatever, then one should adopt the position of a modest suspension of critique: ‘well I can’t disprove it, so I guess I should entertain the idea that it might exist…’. But if you follow this line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion, you would be required to maintain a modest suspension of critique with regard to ALL faith-based ideas – even those held by religiously motivated terrorists: you can’t DISPROVE that their actions are the will of Allah, so therefore you must entertain the idea that their claims MIGHT be true.

Furthermore, advocating a healthy scepticism that is derivative of the critical-logical mindset does not equate to reductionist scientism. What is being advocated by supporters of reason is that all positive statements of knowledge (e.g. this is wrong, this is true, this is beautiful, etc) are premised on either evidence or reasoned argument; not necessarily scientific argument, but PHILOSOPHICAL argument based on reason and/or supportive evidence. So reasoning people are happy to spend time and energy arguing against the evidence and arguments of other reasoning people – that is the essence of the intellectual conscience; but why should a reasoning person bother seriously investigating the “faith” of a person whose views are wilfully derived from anthropomorphic fantasy and dogma, and who would be unwilling to engage in debate about their faith (given the very meaning of faith) in any case?

LSH, what you yourself demonstrate is a hasty jump to a conclusion based on limited facts. You have built me up as some sort of agnostic fence sitter. You've even dreamt up what i think and what my line of reasoning would be on the subject of God. Yet all you have is the one or two lines of text i wrote above, or perhaps you have read all my previous posts first to try and really investigate what i might think (but i doubt it), and even then i reckon you'd still not have sufficient facts to predict my thinking, given i'm prone to a bit of irony and tongue in cheek at times, and i've been known to change my mind now and then also.
So why would you assert knowledge of something (ie what i think and believe) without enough "evidence"? I thought that is what you are criticizing of the religious?
It seems you argue on the side of reason but do not employ reason.

"why should a reasoning person bother seriously investigating the “faith” of a person whose views are wilfully derived from anthropomorphic fantasy and dogma?"
Well if you presuppose such a derivation you wouldn't bother would you? But if you didn't make such a presupposition, you might find reason to investigate.

"and who would be unwilling to engage in debate about their faith (given the very meaning of faith) in any case?"
Given that faith is a sort of "sureness" about something with or without supporting facts, maybe someone who is strong in faith is not so much unwilling to engage in debate, but moreso they probably don't feel any need to engage in debate. ie they have no need to defend their beliefs, nor any desire to prove them. That's my speculation anyway.

stop&think, thank you for your response to my post. No the argument is not about AIDS – that was obviously introduced as an example – but I can’t resist a reply to the comments you couldn’t resist.

Reducing the argument to its elements, you seem to be saying abstinence reduces AIDS and I am saying that condoms reduce AIDS. If abstinence is not working wouldn’t it be a good idea to try condoms? Human lives are at stake. We shouldn’t be depending entirely on doctrine if it is not saving lives.

You declare “While there are some parts of the Catholic faith that can only be accepted with a blind faith (like the doctrine of the Trinity, for example), most of it is completely understood by human reason and a good deal of people around the world understand it and adhere to it.”

Does this include the virgin birth, Jesus rising from the dead, the assumption of Mary, and transubstantiation? I feel genuine sorrow for all those people who understand and adhere to these irrational superstitions.

C’mon stop&think –STOP AND THINK! Who is demonstrating the ignorance and silliness you accuse me of? Let the readers decide.

Spendocrat,

Give us your definition of "science"

Francis, what point could you possibly want to make with a "precise definition of science"? spendocrat is trying to talk about what is true, and how we know it, and you seem to want to distract from that to talk about what is good. Not that that's not wortwhile. It's simply not spendocrat's point.

That's the problem with your use of the sloppy term "scientific fundamentalism". If it is meant to attack the claim that "All applications of science are good" then go ahead and attack your straw man. If it is meant to attack the claim that "Scientific statements are always correct" then go and attack your second straw man. If it is meant to attack the claim that "The scientific method is a bloody good way to figure out the phsycial and biological world" then you're on a loser.

Whatever, the onus is upon you to say exactly what you mean by "scientific fundamentalism". And yes, Galileo was a (brilliant) arrogant stirrer who caused most of his own problems, and wasn't nearly as correct as he thought. So what?

bushbasher,

The difference between science and religionism is that science will maintain a null hypotheses as a degraded heuristic to its positive posit and beliefs are tentative and not doctrinaire.

Contrarily, the Churches to the best of my knowledge do not draw on comparative theocrasia, anthropology and historgraphies to try to disprove their kernel posits, in the way science does. As a result, a fundamentalist Christian believes that Adam and Eve lived with the dinosaurs on a flat Earth created in 4,004 BCE, which is surrounded by a crystal sphere, just outside the orbit of the Moon, beyond which is heaven and that ancients were giants and Moses had horns!

And, the Sun revolves around the Earth. The Chinese astronomers tried to convince Jesuit missionaries otherwise, but the Christians held their ground.

The Christian was created by Paul, Nicaea, Erasmus and Augustine drawing on the Jewish faith and Roman Mystery cults, and had/has very little to with any any wondering Messiah of the first century period.

stop&think

"You can’t disregard the Church teaching, get AIDS and then go crying back to complain – what a silly attitude."

You can if an organisation is deliberately ensuring there is no access to proper education on this matter. Condoms do prevent AIDS and if the Chrurch is active in disuading funding for such measures or is guilty of not providing a more 'rounded' view of the world, then it should be criticised accordingly.

If clerics want to be involved in poltiics, they should seek political
office. There has been a hyped campaign in the West about Muslims wishing to impose Sharia law - what is the difference?

Fortunately most people demonstrate greater reasoning capacity than those who have become nothing more than 'pillars of salt' by looking to anachronistic dogma rather than updating their knowledge based on new information.

Do we really believe that the people who lived 2,000 years ago were substantially more intelligent than the people of today? Has 2000 years of progress really meant nothing?

ABSTINENCE is fine for those who wish it and condoms are perfect for those who wish to engage in healthy, consensual, sexual relationships with others. Can you really believe that the politicians would ban the use of condoms in Australia for example... and gain subsequent re-election?

The new pope has claimed Christianity is a religion based on reason - unfortuantley he doesn't seem to realsie that using the word reason and acttually doing it, reasoning, are not the same thing.

K£vin,

Over population is a significant problem. The human biomass takes several times its own to sustain it. Entending what you say, we can't keep growing our population and develop poorer countries to Western levels at the same time with existing technologies. It just wont work.

Thanks, I agree with the author, Alex.
Catholicism is a way of life, beyond a religious identity. In order to live the way of Jesus one must have leaders willing to argue for the truth, and a people willing to inform their minds with such advice.

Any similarity between Pell and Jesus is mighty hard to spot.

" Catholicism is a way of life, beyond a religious identity. In order to live the way of Jesus one must have leaders willing to argue for the truth, and a people willing to inform their minds with such advice. " - Renee

The Catholic Church has very little to do with truth or the teaching said to have been psoted by Jesus. Institutional of the early Jesus cults occured between the first to fourth centuries. In the fourth, century that Church destroyed historically significant statues, in Taliban fashion. The Church controlled knowledge and tried to keep people ignorant and burnt scientists the stake. It is a dispictable organization up there with Hilter and Stalin.

Renee

In order to live the way of Jesus - you simply have to treat others as you would wish to be treated. It is known as "The Golden Rule"... and is also related to the teaching "judge others not, lest ye be judged". Jesus stood up for ordinary people - he was anti-authoritarian - why do you think the religious 'authorities' of his day engineered his death?

To know more about "The Golden Rule", go to the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Oliver

I agree, without appropriate birth control, the world is in the fast lane on the highway to hell. The Pope is now trying to attach himself to the environmental issue - no doubt because he recognises the 'mood'. Overpopulation is leading to planetary exhaustion. People do have the capacity to reason and increase their awareness of the world and how ecosystems work - hopefully from a more holistic point of view. The Pope, like many Western "leaders", wants to have his cake and eat it. This issue demonstrates clearly why following anachronistic dogma, rather than responding to events with 'reason', as they unfold, is still the way major faith leaders think. Claiming to 'reason' and then quoting 2,000 year old phrases, out of context, to justify an entrenched position is ultimately deception - even if done so 'unconsciously'.

It seems to me that the Catholic Church is overly interested in human reproduction for one reason only - to ensure its own "supremacy" as a faith institution. It is the competition for supremacy - race or faith which will eventually kill (is killing) the planet. Ironically, of course, the early christians, those closest "in time" to Jesus and his teachings, transcended race and religious difference - to them all people were equal.

We live in a country where Cardinal Pell (and everyone else)has every right to express a view about anything at all, and is indeed expected to do so because he is a cardinal. The issue is not the expression of the view, or even the implied (and in my view very real) coercion threats to various MPs - there is no greater threat to any devout catholic than the possible loss of salvation via denial of the sacraments - the real issue is the nonsense that catholics (and other religious nuts) accept as 'revealed' truth. We have a world in political turmoil largely because of alleged biblical prophecy, and proceeding towards social meltdown because of exponential population growth, yet the myths and fables of 'the book' prevail. Perhaps the good, if any, to result from the Pell comments is that at least one of the more illogical and ridiculous outcomes of christian mainstream doctrine is presented for all to see and ridicule. Cardinal Pell is an educated idiot, little more than a brainwashed mouthpiece for an archaic and totally outmoded secular organisation that claims a direct telephone to a non-existent god. Dr Pell obviously has no accurate idea of what is entailed by therapeutic cloning. Perhaps in the fullness of time if Dr Pell develops Parkinson's disease or any of the many other dreadful afflictions possibily cureable by cloned stem cell therapy he might see fit to change his view. If the human race is to survive it will be due to a combination of various secular devices of which science is a major player, not by the hoped for advent of Jesus or the spiritual administrations of the pope. Examine the record.

GYM-FISH,

Pell acts inappropriately if he "threatens" politicians from taking communion. He is leveraging his position a cardinal to counter a political process with an ideology. It is a strongarm tactic against Iemma's will.

It would be equally wrong for a Bank not to finance small businesses backing a certain political party.

Moreover, my understanding is that Eucharist is to believers and even non-believers, a memorial meal remembering the Life of Jesus, having nothing to with the doctrines of a Church founded hundreds of years after His death. Probably, originally, the meal was more aligned to Jewish home rites than any Christian Sunday organised religion.

If God did exist, It would a separate construct to the Church, which comprised of humans pretending to be that God's agent to their own advantage.

Oliver
I don't think we are too far apart, if at all in principle. The essential fact as I see it is that regardless of secular antecedents etc. the eucharist is (to catholics) a great deal more than a remembrance meal - as I understand it, it is an essential link in the salvation chain. I argue that Cardinal Pell qua priest can direct catholic belief from the pulpit - rightly or wrongly that is his job however much I may disagree with his position. When however such direction is publicly pointed to specific MPs via the general media an altogether more sinister overtone is evident. This situation is not new. The catholic incursion into politics via the issue of state aid to catholic schools during the 1950s and 1960s helped keep the labor movement out of federal office for some twenty years. They won that one! Hopefully, these days the general public is (if not wiser) then less inclined to be manipulated by implied threats of hellfire, brimstone, and eternal damnation - one can only hope!

GYM-FISH

Thanks for your reply:

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-24.htm

Please pay special attention to the last sentence the Catbolic Church is ignoring a direct command from its god.

GYM-FISH,

Do the multple interpretations of the following say what is said or not. If not, isn't Pell trying to leverage position, against his god's explicit direction, against politicians. Read Iemma.

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/11-24.htm

If this the Word of God, what Church or Cardinal has the right to defy it?

[Pell and] now Kamal Mousselmani [head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia] should not their leverage Office. Citizen Mousselmani has an avenue to Parliament, via his elected representative, if he feels Australia is supporting Isreali terrorists.