Yes some how in the scheme of things I get sent an obnoxious newsletter Inside "catholic" via the said BIG Deal Hudson.

christian fascism/psychosis and phoney intolerant "moral" self-righteousness are very much the content of this newsletter. There is nothing "catholic" (meaning universal) at all to be found there.

Is this in fact correct: "Under our charity law, the church here is in the same position as the US church. All churches are in effect “supernatural charities” eligible for tax-exempt status because to “advance religion” is legally deemed to be a form of charity."?

Australia is quite different from the US in that donations to churches are not tax-deductible here, except for specific approved funds for education or humanitarian care. This applies to only a small percentage of the churches' overall income, and certainly not to any income used to "advance religion".

Clarification please, Max?

It must surely come as no surprise to to pretty well everyone with a modicum of intelligence - let alone the author of 'The Purple Economy'!- that the Catholic church in common with every other (alleged) 'church', places cash before principle - not to mention also before the well-being of their misguided believers. Cash is what it is all about - always will be.
How anyone can believe the nonsensical rubbish espoused by the various churches is utterly beyond me - yet, both individually and collectively, they continue to fill the coffers.

An incisive and well-written essay, but everyone who isn't wilfully blind to the Vatican's motives already knows it prizes corporate power above its professed principles.

So Christians are hypocrites. Who would have guessed?

The Director of the Australia New Zealand National Secular Association lamenting that the Vatican is not fundamentalist enough. What is this if not hypocrisy?

Max I really can't see why you are surprised by the Catholic Churches position on abortion, and the role of money and power entwined in the whole issue.
Abortion is legal at present anyway, so I can't see the point in the article anyway?

'Would politicians who vote for decriminalisation of abortion lose votes? Yes, if the vast majority of women in their electorate find out they voted against it, they will.'

We are a democracy in Australia the last time I looked. If there is a majority of votes counted for a politician/political party, then they will be in power.
The fact that abortion is allowed under certain circumstances in this country shows that the majority of people support it. So there's an end to it!

Asking the Catholic church to stick to its ideals meets no definition of hypocrisy, George, even when it comes from a secular organisation.

At the moment the Vatican is having a bet both ways by only living up to its supposedly infallible and divine principles when it makes for good marketing.

If it stopped being so hypocritical and evasive we'd see just how popular the RCC's philosophy really is, and that's a desirable goal for anyone who cares about truth and honesty.

All this aside Max, what do you think of the tax payer funded practice of doctors killing little babies in their mothers wombs? That seems to be the real question you should be addressing ..not worrying what about what the Catholic Church is up to. The elephant in the room Max! You do a disservice to people of other faiths and non, to imply the Catholic Church is somehow the last word on abortion. 500 years before Christ the pagan philosopher Hippocrates had some thing to say about the practice. The Natural Law Max , written on the hearts of all men , the ability of discerning good from evil. Don't tell me anyone, in their heart of hearts, could fail to discern the killing of an innocent, defenceless baby in its mothers womb, comes into the category of evil.

Like many atheists Max Wallace seems very muddled in his thinking.

The Vatican does not, as he says, work through the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference. Maybe the article should have been titled, “US Bishops’ Conference not serious about abortion”.

Denny >"Don't tell me anyone, in their heart of hearts, could fail to discern the killing of an innocent, defenceless baby in its mothers womb, comes into the category of evil."

And yet Denny, abortion is legal in this country, so I guess the majority of Australians do support the right of women to choose what happens to their body. No one, least of all any unrelated males, has the right to change that.

Sancho,
Exactly, you can ask the Catholic Church to stick to its MORAL ideals (e.g. as expressed in various papal encyclicals) but to ask it to DICTATE to politicians knowledgeable of local situations how to apply these moral norms in practice is like asking it to dictate to scientists how to do their job. The Church can only ask Christian scientists not to interpret (this has nothing to do with the actual findings of science but with the world-view of the scientist) scientific findings in a way that goes against the metaphysical presuppositions of the Catholic, Christian, theistic world-view.

The difference between moral norms and political practice is something like the difference between world-views and findings of science, or for that matter as between mathematics and its application in practice. As a mathematician I could criticise an engineer when he/she makes a mathematical mistake, but I could not dictate to him/her what kind of mathematics to use to solve his/her particular problem (that I would probably not understand anyhow).

In another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9292&page=0) I have been involved in discussing statements that could be seen by some oversensitive people as insulting. You provide a good example of that in your second paragraph.

You're dissembling, George.

Does the Catholic church represent god or not? Is abortion wrong or not? You can't appeal to pragmatism when claiming to represent the creator of the universe.

The article reminds us that a child's parents and doctor were excommunicated for allowing an abortion, so why are politicians and scientists not excommunicated for failing to oppose research or legislation which allows it? How can we take an organisation seriously when it claims to represent the almighty, then allows its members to contradict His wishes whenever it might be politically convenient?

The Church as no qualms whatever about dictating to millions of poor people that they should be burdened with HIV and overpopulation, so why is it so soflty-softly when Catholic politicians fail to stand against abortion and euthanasia legislation?

You're just reinforcing the author's point: Catholics only exercise their ideals when it's politically profitable.

The RCC's claim to authority relies solely upon its claim to represent god, yet it never punishes adherents who act against doctrine unless they're completely defenceless and powerless.

That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

george, you seem to be suggesting that the catholic church is somehow divorced from politics. i'd suggest that e.g. some latin american and north american people would be very surprised to hear this. i take this to be the point of the article.

and they may not be the norm, but there is no shortage of catholic bishops who do directly seek to dictate to politicians, and catholic voters, on the voting on moral matters. is it unreasonable to question the inconsistency of the level and the content of such dictating?

Sancho,
Thank you for the term “dissembling”. I shall add it to the zoo of sins (like “intellectual gymnastics“, “condescension“, “sophistry“, etc.) I am accused of when trying to argue a point beyond the level of e.g. runner.

Sancho, bushbasher,
All I tried - and apparently failed - was to explain that

morals and politics are not the same things, and though you can have morals without politics, you cannot have politics without morals,

by pointing to similar interrelations, like

science and philosophy (of science) are not the same thing and though you can do science without philosophy, you cannot do philosophy (of science) without knowing somenthing about science,

or like

mathematics and physics are not the same thing and though you can do (pure) mathematics without physics, you cannot do physics without mathematics.

In what extent and how this applies to particular political, philosophical or physical situations respectively is a not an easy question to answer, and the Catholic Church is not the only one who has to tackle it.

As to your more or less standard list of accusations against the Catholic Church - some of them fully justified, some of them justified to a point, some based on misunderstandings, some pure fabrications - these are different topics and even if I wanted - or felt qualified - to address them, I do not think it could be done objectively in the few words one has on this OLO

Apologies for this delayed response.

Alan A: what you describe in your post is gift deductible status. This is distinct from tax-exempt status which any religious organisation in Australia is entitled to, if they satisfy the Tax Office's criteria for eligibility. All mainstream religions in Australia are now multi-billionaires mostly because of their tax-exempt status which even extends to tax-exempt profits from their investments and commercial businesses. I discuss this at length in my book, The Purple Economy. For a quick read, suggest you google my 'Render Unto Caesar' from The Australian last year.

Suzeonline: common law decisions allow abortion in Australia but it does not follow that abortion is legal in all circumstances. Victoria has just decriminalized abortion. A campaign is under way for NSW to follow suit. In QLD, a young woman and her partner have recently been arrested, charged and will face court for obtaining an RU-486 like drug from overseas to facilitate an abortion.

Max

George, you can add "dissembling" to whatever grouping of catchwords you please. That won't make it less apposite.

The question is simple: does the RCC represent the inviolable will of God, or is it an agnostic organisation which is entirely flexible with doctrine when it comes to protecting its corporate image?

You're dissembling by trying to turn the question into something broad and nebulous that can be dealt a vague answer - an answer which lets the Church off the hook for not censuring Catholic politicians and scientists who fail to oppose abortion provisions, but validates merciless punishment of the weak and powerless, like 9-year-old rape victims.

Would you care to have a stab at the real question, or just acknowledge that the Vatican is a den of hypocrites interested in nothing but their own interests?

Anzsa, I believe the decision to prosecute the couple in Queensland for buying the drug RU-486 is more to do with the importation of drugs not ordered by Doctors than the actual abortion issue itself.

If we had more liberal abortion laws all over this country, then these young people and others like them would not have to resort to unlawful activities to secure an abortion.

If the Catholic church did not try to force its religion-based morals on Politicians and the government, there would be more readily available contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and more readily available abortions.

Alternatively we could go back to the 'good old days' when Church decisions governed the Parliament and women resorted to back-yard abortions and died horrible deaths along with the baby.

george, yes you're attempting to distinguish morals from politics. but it would be more convincing if you dealt less with metaphors and more with the actuality of the catholic church's muddy and intertwined dealings with morals and politics. it would also be a way to substantiate your suggestions of the author's hypocrisy.

Sancho,
I am sorry, but I do not answer loaded questions like “Have stopped beating your wife?”

bushbasher,
perhaps “hypocrisy” was not the right word. If a Young-earth-creationist criticised the Vatican for not accepting as scientific fact that the world was 6000 years old, I could understand his motivations. However how would you describe the motivation of an avowed atheist who would criticise the Vatican for that?

>>it would be more convincing if you dealt less with metaphors and more with the actuality of the catholic church's muddy and intertwined dealings with morals and politics<<
Yes, it would be more convincing if, instead of pointing to the difficulties of the problem of applying moral norms in politics, I actually suggested ideal solutions in particular (or did you mean all conceivable?) situations. If I were able to do that, I think I would be a very valuable adviser to the Vatican on matters of how to apply ethical rules in concrete situation, so that the “common good” be best achieved. Unfortunately, I am not such an expert, therefore also for me concrete situations look often “muddy and intertwined”. I only know something about how much easier it is to do pure mathematics compared to knowing how and in what situations to apply it to achieve the desired effect. That was the reason for my metaphor.

There is not only the problem of applying ethics in politics, but also of fallible humans who are not up to the task of dealing with complicated situations. (Even the pope is “infallible” only as far as teaching on morals, are concerned, not their application in concrete political situations). A sad example is the unfortunate Brazilian archbishop Sobrinho in case of the 9 -year old girl, although remedies have been set into motion starting with an authoritative article in L‘Osservatore Romano by the Head of the Pontifical Academy for Life. Unfortunately, it is always easier to cause damage (in this case to the girl and her family) than to correct or even undo it.

george, the author's motivations don't seem that mysterious to me: he's attacking what he perceives as an inconsistency in the manner the catholic church engages politically on its purportedly firm moral stances.

and of course people, including me, commonly argue in the manner of the author. to take your example, given a biblical (pseudo)-literalist, it's fair to take them to task on the nasty bits of the bible. not because one wants them to whip slaves, but because one wants to confront them with the glaring inconsistency of their position.

with your last post, i guess you don't seem to be arguing against the author as i interpret him. you are rather attributing inconsistency to inherent difficulties of the intersection of morality and politics, and of infallible humans. i take it the author, by comparison, is attributing it to political expediency, and is thus himself charging hypocrisy.

maybe both. but, to the extent that the nature of the church's (or its representative's) political acts are correlated to different political systems, and to the church's social power, i'd say circumstantial evidence gives strong support to the author's contention.

even on your own terms, i think there is a problem. given the inherent difficulties you point to, it would perhaps be prudent of the church and certain representatives to in general be less, um, sanctimonious.

If we're talking about the hypocrisy of the Church, there's no better example IMV than the Church-inspired mantra "Jesus died for our sins".

As if anyone would naturally subject themselves to this form of torture to "help others" and be so sanguine about it. The fact is that if Jesus were to say this he'd be condoning the transgression of one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill". The truth is that he came to help mankind, mankind felt threatened by his message and murdered him.

What the Church did was to turn this morally reprehensible act to its own political advantage in the pursuit of power. It was propaganda pure and simple in order to stay in a position of power. And it worked, as a billion adherents globally testifies to.

Well played, George!

When caught in an embarrassing and contradictory position, hoist one's nose high and contemptuously claim the discussion is beneath one.

Always nice to see the common man using debating techniques learned from John Howard.

bushbasher,
The author himself states: “This paper argues that if the Vatican was serious about abortion in western liberal democracies, it would: stop complaining about its availability; purge those members of the church who do not share its supposed hard line, including bishops; excommunicate Catholic politicians who dissemble on abortion.“ This is not about inconsistencies but a call for the Vatican to be “fundamentalist“ by interpreting rigidly and verbatim its moral norms.

As for inconsistencies (in providing exceptions and extenuating circumstances to the comandment “you shall not kill”), you are absolutely right and I myself have written an article (not for this OLO, not in English) about the inconsistency in e.g. providing such “excuses” for killings associated with war, but not for “killings” associated with abortion. However, I do not think the solution lies in being as uncompromising in the first case as in the second (or even worse, what the author is suggesting), but in the other way around, in providing as many exemptions and extenuating circumstances for “killings” associated with abortion as for war (Although I am quite happy that the pope was uncompromising, when approached by a number of Catholic neocon heavyweights asking him to declare the attack on Iraq a “just war”).

These, however, are inconsistencies in the rules, not in how they are applied in different situations. For Instance, the pope was against the Iraq war, so should he have excommunicated not only the Catholic generals who took part, but every Catholic pilot or foot soldier who had to take part in the killings (or did he/she, since they all voluntarily chose to be soldiers)? Besides, there is a differences between why one went to war e.g. against Hitler and why against Saddam. And political situations - where considerations like what is the “lesser evil”, what is more beneficial to the “common good” of society, also enter - complicate the matter further.

I think the fundamentalist approach, that the author seems to be suggesting, is certainly not the one leading to the “common good”.

Yes, there are sanctimonious people. Everywhere, not only in the Church.

george, i think on the substance we largely agree, though i'm not sure if you are discussing the catholic church as it is, or as you would like it to be. i also think you may have the wrong end of the stick with the article, but i don't think it's worth pursuing.

Hi George,

I empathise with you. You're dealing with fools again who will just never get it. It's like damned if they do and damned if they don't in the case of the Catholic Church. They'll always be continually whingeing about the tykes. They are so lost in their entrenchment of unbalanced thoughts and anti-Catholic diatribe.

You are are far too civil for these crackers.

That's too bad you no longer live in Oz, as we are in need of more saner people like yourself here.

Hi Constance,
Thank you for the kind words, although I am not that special, only probably older than most contributors here. And also the Catholic Church, the Catholic point of view, has a tradition and history of evolving - and stumbling - over many more years than the variety of world-views our atheist (or just anti-Church) friends here profess. (Well, at second thought, the Jewish tradition is older). And age does, or should, make you more merciful towards others, today we say more tolerant. And more willing to admit shortcomings and failures on one’s own side, in this case our Catholic Church.

So when encountering “anti-Catholic diatribes“ I try not only to take them on their face value - and decide how much objective truth is behind them - but I also look at the proponents of these “diatribes” as seekers of ... well, whatever, perhaps just their peace of mind. I try to understand their motivations, life experiences or what urges them to engage in these verbal attacks, and only in extreme cases do I decide they are “fools” or “crackers“ who are best left ignored.

Besides, even a “fool” could be just somebody who looks at the “finger” (the Church) and decides he/she does not like it, without realising that it points to the “moon” - something we Christians see as the purpose of our existence - and even an ugly or dirty finger can point to the moon that is beyond direct reach.

Hi George,

I love your references to the moon. Yes, you are older and wiser. But I feel as I get older that I am becoming more intolerant and just want to scream. I'm just becoming so sick of listening to the crap that I encounter and the empty declarations of self righteousness (always lefties). You see, I live in Sydney - hedonistic city and that is what I told some Berliners last year when asked about my town. It was my first visit to Berlin and I loved everything about it - felt more at home there. Last night I had a few beers in a pub with a newly found friend from work. We both have similar backgrounds and agreed that Sydney is so unspiritual and lacking in interesting people, and that no-one cares about anything anymore (including workplace - all quantity, no quality). When you mentioned in a post about mainstream thought (ie ingratiating popularity)- it is so true. People just go along blindly with the current fashion. I feel that there is so much of a herd mentality going around and people just keeping up with appearances. Ie. dishonesty,superficiality, ignorance and naivety. I've had a gutful.

Hi Constance,

I think what you describe - though perhaps in too pessimistic colours - is true about most of the Western world, not just Sydney. Also, a city that you visit as a tourist looks always more interesting than the place you come from (c.f. the neighbour’s grass being always greener). I do not know about Berlin in particular, but I can assure you that a similar atmosphere you describe can be found in most of Europe’s major cities. Here the Muslim factor, probably even more than in Australia, interferes - for better or worse - with these “unspiritual, self-righteous, hedonostic” inclinations and complicates the situation.

This all simply means that humanity, especially the West, passes through a critical period, perhaps not unlike Europe in the times of St Augustine. Although himself part of the declining Roman civilisation, he did not lament over its demise with the civilised pagans, nor did he rejoyce over its downfall with the new barbarians. His faith turned lament and nostalgia into respect for tradition, and fear of the new, unknown, into hope for a better world, as painful as the transitional period turned out to be for the civilised Romans.

The difference, of course, is that in Augustine‘s times the barbarians came from the outside, in our times they are home-made, Westerners. In spite of this difference, I think we can learn from Augustine to be more patient with those we have difficulties to understand or even sympathise with, and more trustful of Providence.

Christianity is now in the eye of a cleansing storm. When it is over, the world, including the West, will see a return to religion (hopefully not only a westernised Islam), albeit on intellectually as well as spiritually higher levels than what it was, when it was seemingly defeated by our “barbarians”.

So I believe that our “civilised” West, including its Christian roots, is going to survive, though no more as the dominant culture, but as the seed of a new community of world cultures, even if we are not going to live that long to see this happen.