Newspapers recently ran a story on Cardinal Pell,'Pell's blast for defiant politicians'.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad-application/pells-blast-for-defiant-politicians/story-fn6bfmgc-1225980210199

I am so pleased that Cardinal Pell has spoken out and told us what we should be thinking and doing.

As he says, "I'm not telling people how to vote."

"I'm telling people how I think they should vote. I'm an Australian citizen and I have as much right to do that as any other citizen," he said.


Of course he does but the Cardinal forgets that he is no mere 'plonker', plucked from the streets to answer a simplistic media voxpop question. He is the Cardinal of the largest church in Australia, whose members have secured spots in all our parliaments and in all our political parties who sit therein.

But what his 'thoughts' do show us, is that this man may actually hanker for the dark ages of the Catholic church.

Pell appears to be in denial of the more secular approach to life that many Catholics have happily adopted.

Pell's words tell us he has no time for 'secularity' impinging on rigid Christian (or at least Roman Catholic) thinking.

Does Pell want a return to denominational schisms in Australian society?

Should Australians forget the hate, bile, and the damage his church has inflicted on so many people here?

But, he is right to challenge Catholic women who seek female priests and Catholic homosexuals who seek equality within his church,or the disloyal Catholics who practise contraception not to mention those who seek changes in the Marriage Act, to reflect on exactly why they remain in such a 'backwoods' organisation.

Pell would no doubt deny any similarity between his calls for a return to strict adherence to every demand from Rome being in anyway comparable to Taliban or Saudi hopes for a 'reformed' world under their benighted and obsidian benevolence, but to someone who regards all religion with intense suspicion, particularly when high church officials enter the public square to 'advise' politicians how to vote, the similarity is striking.

OMG - TBC I nearly choked when I first read your cleverly chosen heading...lol Well done!

You make a very reasonable case.

The link you posted alleges that Cardinal Pell states, "But it's incongruous for somebody to be a Captain Catholic one minute, saying they're as good a Catholic as the Pope, then regularly voting against the established Christian traditions."

Well I agree with him... If what the following links allege are true... are average Catholics probably far superior Catholics to the Pope?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html?_r=2

Or This

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/28/pope-reprimands-cardinal-over-sex-abuse-criticism/?hpt=T2

Are the Pope, Pell and his companions "the New Neros", seeming to be fiddling whilst Rome burns, if all the horrors that have been alleged are true?

How do people assess Pell's alleged actions here?

http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/

Could these lines apply to many in the hierarchy of the churches?

Matthew 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

I think I will just accept Jesus' warning, and I suggest Christians do the same when listening to the leaders of churches.

Could this also be related to Church rulings and opinions?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/16/vatican.exorcist.devil/index.html

IN what ways is the Devil at work within the Churches?

Christians BEWARE!

Opinionated2, checked your urls, a good selection.

The claims that auld Nick lurks in every corner of our lives is a very Juju Magic approach to personal responsibilities, and just a little too glib an opt-out for unacceptable behaviour.

One would have thought that those church men who Nick takes advantage of might have been better equipped than most to see, resist and overcome such 'tempting'.

Apparently not.

So, if the Cone of Morals these people wear cannot help the faithful against Nick, what can?

Time to take a more rational and responsible approach to 'sinning', and drop all the Mumbo while adopting 'personal responsibility'?

Clerics often lie

Credulous sheep lap it up

Faith was ever thus

Dr Paul Collins in his book "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?" tells us that the way that Catholics respond to contemporary challenges will depend on which part of the theological spectrum they inhabit. He describes Catholics, (like Cardinal Pell), who will tell others who disagree with them to "get out and found your own church if you can't accept the doctrines and rules of the club!" Collins tell us that such people believe that their very narrow definition of Catholicism is the only one that is valid: everyone else is a "heretic" and beyond the pale. He tells us that these people tend to focus on the world as a sinful place and humankind as a fallen race tained with original sin. However, he confirms that there are Catholics who have a more positive, optimistic view of the world. They, like John XXIII, can perceive what is worthwhile in modern culture, and they feel that in order to achieve its goal the church must be part of culture, that it must emphasise those aspects of its teaching that best respond to the particular needs of the time and place.There are people who feel that while maintaining an open stance toward the contemporary world, the church must also offer a direct and honest critique, derived from the Scriptures, of modern culture and values. But it must also be willing to participate in the world, to learn from it and to co-operate with other people of good will in building the structures of love, mercy, and justice. Sadly, Cardinal Pell belongs to the conservative side of the spectrum -and the tragedy is that there is at present an enormous amount of antagonism between the two camps. Many Catholics have moved beyond these divisions, and I dare say, many more will be doing the same in the future. The church faces many challenges, however, Cardinal Pell is not the kind of leader capable of overcoming any of them. He like so many before him will end up on the dust pile of history.

Lexi,
I have dibs on the monolithic format,
I’ll have you know!
……………

I can't see that Pel's done anything amiss.
The Catholic version of Christianity is
surely not endlessly malleable, is it?

I’d have thought Pel was a defender of the
faith rather than a “dust pile of history”?

Does Pel subscribe to evolution theory,
btw? I believe the Pope’s Vatican does,
according to PR.

One wonders what part of the gospel is not
gospel. If God didn’t create the world, how
can we be sure he impregnated Mary?

It’s all well and good to have a fungible
faith for the purposes of keeping up the
membership, but at what point is God’s word
not to be gainsaid?

How are us evil atheists to interpret
Catholic back-flips and “populism” as
anything but marketeering?

I say, stand by your guns, Pel! One should
not covet one’s neighbour’s ass etc (my
neighbour has a beautiful ass, so glad I’m
not a Catholic!)

Lexi, indeed, I certainly understand what you say Collins says about having the church adapt and change according to the secular world's world view.

In fact, that is the only way to keep a fairy tale going, is it not?

But, I think Squeers, like me, can see that the Pell-Jensen-Houston-Pope-Blair-Rudd-Abbott-Bush-Taliban-Saudi world view of absolute rights and wrongs (always the other people's fault of course-or Satan's) is the true face of organised religion.

It is the rigidity of this Mumbo that gives people the certainty they crave, particularly when they believe the Howards' of the world who say we are all going to be over run by Johnny Turk and his crescent moon.

Either the Bible IS the word of God, or it ain't.

There is no 'partial pregnancy' involved here, is there?

It cannot be infallible yesterday, but altered to suit consumer moods today, and change again next week, can it?

That would make it a man made fable, and nothing more.

Which is fine by me.

Let's reinterpret this collection of handed down stories according to the times now, to see if there are gains to be made, or new stories to add even, but let us then ditch all the smoking handbags, magic water, cloaks, and everything else designed to create 'shock and awe', and get down to 'living together'.

The Collins 'Mick' sounds like a reasonable person to me, one that makes their own mind up, and knows 'right' from 'wrong' without viewing the world through a pair of Guy Athol Shadow's specs.

So, when do these Secular Catholics make the next logical move, out of an angst ridden Mumbo Juju Magic framework and into the actual, real, only, world?

Squeers and TBC:

I thought this thread was about Cardinal Pell. To me Cardinal Pell's actions are the antithesis of Christ and his teachings. As I see it Pell is acting at the behest of the Vatican and is not supported by the vast majority of Australian Catholics.

cont'd...

Emile Durkheim was one of the earliest sociologists who believed that the origins of religion were social, not supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their source, the rituals enacted in any religion enhance the solidarity of the community as well as its faith. Religious rituals such as Baptism, Bar Mitzvah, Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christmas Mass, funerals, et cetera, et cetera... These rituals serve to bring people together; to remind them of their common group membership; to reaffirm their traditional values; to offer comfort in times of crisis; and in general, to help transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the next. In fact, Durkheim argued, shared religious beliefs and the rituals that go with them are so important that every society needs a religion, or at least some belief system that serves the same functions. Of course although religion is a universal social institution, it takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods, ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer. As far as I'm concerned - I have my own beliefs, however I don't have a "missionary complex" and have no intention of imposing those beliefs on anybody else. Live and let live is my ethos.

Lexi, I don't doubt Durkheim's thoughts at all.

But that just shows how totally irrelevant the power structure of the Vatican, and Canterbury for that matter, to say nothing of all the other centres of Mumbo, really are.

Are we really so simple that we have to huddle together pretending to believe in something that isn't there, in order to pretend to live in harmony with each other?

And yes, it is about Pell, and how irrelevant he is.

Between Durkheim and Collins you seem to have exposed the BIG man in the sky type of religion for what it really is, tawdry tinsel for twits.

Pell is out of touch, but he'd do well in Africa at the moment, with their witch burnings and Scripture Union evangelism, and all the rot that goes with that behaviour.

Which leads me back to what Pell was saying, if you don't follow the rules, clear off.

Why don't the decent people who oppose the group-thought of the Pell-Vatican variety not just abandon ship and grow up a little more than they obviously have already?

A real 'life's a mystery' question... or as they say oop norf, 'There's nowt as queer as folk'.

<As far as I'm concerned - I have my own beliefs, however I don't have a "missionary complex" and have no intention of imposing those beliefs on anybody else. Live and let live is my ethos>

Well no one could argue with that, Lexi.

I'd counter apropos the other stuff that to begin with, just because Durkheim said so don't make it so. We can all quote authorities to bolster our prejudices. Marx was arguably a founder of sociology and he was a (quasi)materialist.
I of course think Pel is a pill, though if he upholds the tenets of the faith I'd have thunk he was all to the good.
I see no earthly reason why we can't have moral and meaningful lives and rituals without the shtick, and can only surmise it's the extraterrestrial element that attracts people. Which makes me ask, what's wrong with this world? And whatever it is let's fix it rather than fixate on fictions.
Every society does not need a religion, but it does or should need a purpose and a credo, which is precisely what we lack.

But TBC is in much better form than I.

TBC:

I can't speak for other people only for myself. As I've written in the past, I used to think that I wasn't religious, and perhaps I wasn't. I didn't like what organized religion had done to the world. I still don't. I have come to see however, that true religion is internal, not external. What some have done in the name of religion does not make religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid. Organized religions have become, in many cases, as calcified as other institutions that form the structure of our modern world. Our religious institutions have far too often become handmaidens of the status quo, while the genuine religious experience is anything but that. Spirituality is an inner fire,a mystical sustenance that feeds our souls. Organised religious institutions will have to step up to bat, religiously, or they will wither away. They have to transform for the simple reason that people have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Paul Collins is quite an engrossing commentator on matters of Catholicism in the contemporary world.
His book "God's Earth" was an attempt to examine man's role in the destructive exploitation of our planet and how attitudes may have to change to reverse the trend.
He writes:
"I personally find it sad that the hierarchs and many of the faithful of my own Catholic tradition still seem largely preoccupied with either the moral minutiae of sexual behaviour and reproduction, or with the churches struggle to free itself from the self-imposed and defensive hangovers of the sixteenth century Counter-Reformation and the hierarchal preoccupations of the nineteenth century. The saddest aspect of contemporary Catholicism is the widespread retreat by the institutional church into a new conservatism and a narrow orthodoxy that is contemptuous of the true Catholic tradition as it is of those Catholics who have tried to live their lives in critical harmony with contemporary society."

I believe Paul Collins has proved somewhat of a thorn in the side for the Catholic hierarchy - perhaps because he shrugs of the myopic views of conservative Catholicism and looks outward to embrace the diverse philosophies of other religions and alternative ways of seeing the world.

Squeers:

Whatever floats your boat old chap!

Poirot:

Thank You!

Lexi:
<Whatever floats your boat old chap!>

The ultimate cop-out--relativism.
Which ossies tend to be past-masters at.

"Whatever ya reckon, mate".

But don't believe it. Remember Wolf Creek!

Poirot, Collins sounds far too clever to be bothering with the Vatican at all.

Does he ever say what would be left if the Mumbo vanished from St. Marks?

(Pell could retrain as a Scripture Union school chaplain).

Surely, it is not that hard to coalesce around some community self-help behaviours?

Once the religio-tribalism and religio-fascism was dumped, and the religio-corporations wound down and their resources put to 'good works' for a change, we could set about battling out what we 'really' valued down here on Terra Firma.

Not much, from the record of history's bleak past.

Pell seems to have confused catholic dogma with ethics, and that Catholics might engage their own grey matter and consciences, rather than than submit to the dictates of the Holy See, means that the church's influence and respect is dwindling.

With the recent scandals and the movement of society away from doctrinal adherence, the positions of the Cardinal holds no more authority than that of the governor general, merely a figure head dusted off and brought out for special occasions.

TBC,

"Collins sounds far too clever to be bothering about the Vatican at all".
I've often thought the same thing. Collins seems to see things in their wider meaning in which to be Catholic was to have broad interests, tastes and sympathies - a universality...but, of course, I don't know that much about Catholicism.

Just as a matter of interest, our town has recently been the site of the building of a brand new provincial Catholic cathedral (the previous one was irretrievably damaged by a tornado - an act of God?)... it now dominates the skyline and is just about completed. The faithful of the diocese are to be graced by the presence of Cardinal Pell for the opening in March.

Poirot,
I don't know, I can't help associating Paul Collins with Miss Austen's Mr Collins, though granted Paul is much more condescending.
Let's not forget that Bob Santamaria always managed to sound reasonable, more so than Paul in fact (or the pope), though there was always something dodgy about him!

Hi Squeers,

You know, I have at least four novels by Jane Austen on my bookshelves and a volume of her selected letters - but I haven't read any of them...most remiss of me I know. And I was so busy having the hots over Colin Firth as Mr Darcy in the small-screen adaptation that I hardly noticed Mr Collins.
Nevertheless, I've just googled him and I think I can glean the sort of character he was.
I take your point about Bob Santamaria.

In his introductory line in the book of God's Earth, Collins refers to himself as an historian. I saw the televised version on Compass years ago and I was very impressed by Collins who I think did come across as a religious historian. He was exploring man's spiritual connection to the world, not just from the narrow confines of Christian dogma, and seeking to discover how the nexus has been brought undone by modern practices.

Paul Collins is one of Australia's most controversial and respected commentators on the Catholic Church. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School and the Australian National University, he is a former priest and a historian and broadcaster. Dr Collins is also a former specialist editor of religion for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His publication include, "Mixed Blessings," "No Set Agenda," "God's Earth," "Between the Rock and a Hard Place," "Burn,"
and "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism Have A Future?"

Squeers:

Religious institutions, as such, are not
the only arbiters of religious experience. Nor should they think they hold some franchise on our spiritual life. They are consultants and frameworks, but they are not God Himself. All I meant to say in my previous post was - believe what you want - that is your choice (as it is mine). I respect your right to your choice - I don't consider it a "cop out," neither should you.

Poirot and Lexi,

to be fair, I've only read some of Paul Collins's journalism so am in no position to judge. It's more of institutionalism and its defenders in general that I'm critical of.
Lexi,
We live in profoundly dysfunctional societies and are facing catastrophic issues that threaten our very survival--in fact throw into question whether we are even ethically entitled to survive. Meanwhile the likes of Pel think all we have to do is pay lip service to an archaic morality.
And relativism, otherwise known as philosophical postmodernism/poststructuralism, is indeed the ultimate cop-out. Most of us know little of these arcane philosophies, but they leach into popular culture at large and afford it a cavalier approach to life and belief that posits individual ego's as the ultimate arbiters of material/spiritual/ethical "standards" and consumption. These ego-dirigibles are of course nothing but hot air, inflated phantasms that imagine themselves discriminating shrewdly among the ideological commodities on offer.
Pel at least stands for something. He's completely wrong in my opinion, of course, apropos the world as attested by the dark human history of Christianity and its present impasse.
So yes, I do consider the fetishisation of free choice (social relativism) a cop-out, and so should you! It is the ultimate in spurious individualism that keeps the vacuous ego fully pumped.
We ought to be responsible for our "beliefs" in social/cultural/ethical, indeed universal, contexts (and not in terms of individual whim--petite bourgeois delusion), and only be satisfied with them when they conduce to the overall health and prosperity of our material (actual) existence. Pel and co are more concerned with "spiritual" matters, at the expense of manifest reality and in defiance of the manifest evils they tolerate.

Squeers:

Here's a few more comments from Dr Paul Collins that may be of interest:

"Although this should not be over-emphasized, an understated, but pervasive, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian feeling sometimes bubbles to the surface in Australia. We see anti-Catholicism in the comments made about Catholics that you would never hear made about other religions which reminds us that aggressive secularism is alive and well. Some people see organised religion as just another form of conservative command and control of our society. At the same time, church leaders use "Australian Godlessness" to claim that the collapse in religious belief and practice isn't really their fault.
It's not church structures, poor leadership, dull sermons, uninspired ministry, lifeless worship or failure to address the real issues facing contemporary society that has led so many people to abandom the church. It is all really the fault of the materialism and relativism of the unwashed punters. Its society that has to change, not justified and righteous church leaders. I would have thought it difficult to argue convincingly that Australia is the most secular place in the world. Certainly parts of Europe could make a strong claim, including Pope Benedict's own Germany, or France, where Catholicism has suffered long-term declines. Australians are not crass materialists, nor are they secular, lazy beach-loving slobs. And the local branch of Catholicism, while it may be seriously ill, is not yet in its terminal stages. Benedict XVI's percpetions about Australian "Godlessness" may be explained by the fact that our religiosity is non-dogmatic, egalitarian and simply doesn't take institutional authority seriously."

Basically, I feel that many people (like myself) are not looking for simple answers, they don't need a religious authority to tell them what to do and they are especially suspicious of institutions "with all the answers." I am more content to live with the questions and I certainly want to take charge of my own spiritual life.

<"Although this should not be over-emphasized, an understated, but pervasive, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian feeling sometimes bubbles to the surface in Australia. We see anti-Catholicism in the comments made about Catholics that you would never hear made about other religions which reminds us that aggressive secularism is alive and well>

Lexi,
thanks for providing an instance of Collins's rhetoric that bears me out.
It is the height of dishonesty for him to ascribe anti-Catholicism to "secularism". You only have to read Dickens to know that the cry of "no Popery" is a hackneyed literary trope (nearly as old as anti-semitism) and a frenzied social chant. Anti-Catholicism stems from the Reformation (and from Catholic corruption theretofore), and in the Anglophone world from Establishment. Why then, one wonders, is Collins putting it at the door of "aggressive secularism"?
Actually, I partly agree with his anti-secular prejudice, at least apropos those who worship at the shrine of empiricism and positivism. But they are not anti-Catholic, they're anti-religion, indeed anti anything that doesn't come under the heading "rational". But I suspect these are also in the tiny minority. Most secularists I know are humble folk who have no truck with absolutes, secular or otherwise, and are not "aggressive", except in disclosing obvious fraud (not so obvious to the dupes). What the religions purvey today is largely fraud; however ardent the "instrument," he/she is part of the corporation.
But individual transcendence also risks delusion. Indeed "Transcendence" in general, but especially as diversion, is tantamount to neglect of duty as well as self-deception.
But Lexi, I think we mostly agree:
we <don't need a religious authority to tell [us] what to do and [we] are especially suspicious of institutions "with all the answers">
Agreed! So let's send their purple robes (Shiraz stains) to the op shop.
"Genuine" institutions are (or would be) the social glue of inclusive democracies born of an ever-renegotiated social contract based on ethical fulfilment.
Individualism is a selfish and delusionary doctrine and no substitute for the mass-deception foisted by institutionalised religion.

Squeers:

I also think that we "mostly do agree," Dr Paul Collins differs a bit.
He says that: "Catholicism has remarkable staying power, an ability to survive unmatched by any contemporary institution. If you've been around for just on 2000 years you will have learned a thing or two ... This doesn't mean that the church will be perfect or that parts of it won't wither and die, or that it won't make mistakes... Catholicism has survived precisely because ultimately it is adaptable and able to change. Often this energy for change comes late in the piece when everything seems to be in dire straits and it may well emerge from the most unexpected source." Collins says, "The thing is that the Australian church is just the right size. Not too small so that it destroys itself in in-fighting, not too large so that it becomes impossible to change." He feels that Catholicism in Australia will survive, certainly with lesser numbers, but with more commitment and ministerial energy. Collins sums up by saying that to achieve that, "Catholics will require genuine local leadership and a willingness to confront both the difficulties and opportunities that the church faces." My feeling is that under Pell's leadership the
church will not be able to do precisely that. But, then I'm not the
religious specialist that Dr Collins is. I cringe every time Pell opens his mouth in public. Anyway, for me this discussion has now run its course. I'll see you on another thread.

Oh Geez LOL..

As I have stated previously on your Catholicism threads TBC; most Catholics abandoned Church pews well over 20 years ago - my generation and today's generation with the exception of kids attending private schools, in which there are the odd masses conducted through school time for special occasions.

Have you ever attended a Mass or Church service at a Catholic Church lasting 45 minutes, to assist your cause, in addressing the wrongs conducted by the Pope, Cardinals, Priests and Clerical Staff within the Catholic Church? A few prayers, a couple of readings from the Bible, Hymns sung, Go in Love and Peace, and that's it, similar to the Anglican Church's gatherings.

Most people do not attend Mass each week for a start, are hypocrites and sinners, as are all individuals, and most people attending Mass/Church on Sundays during their lifetimes are well aware of these facts about themselves and others.

In relation to Cardinal Pell's speeches, only he is able to respond and justify his comments, as they are ultimately, Cardinal Pell's responsibility.

Why not Challenge Cardinal Pell regarding all of his wrong opinions and wrongdoings committed within the Catholic Church, you are fervently attempting to address, as you may well make a difference regarding the outstanding issues and crimes committed by the Catholic Hierarchy.

As for politics, politicians, religion and past events - irreversible damage commmitted for far too many years over 40 years.

Hence my cynical LOL.

Q: A similar situation to when a parent loses a child through rape and murder. Parents and family lobby the Courts, Government, request assistance from Australian groups for years and years. The public do nothing! nothing! to assist the family before or after the court hearings or to assist in changing or amending legislation for other young murdered innocent Australian victims.

Been there done that - politicians, the law society, media and other groups all set up to cover one another.

Do you think Australians will ever bother sacrificing their time to fight for the justice of those innocent children [now adults] who were assaulted by Priests and Brothers, when Australians in every state never bothered banding together to ensure that legislation was changed to charge and gaol [with adequate sentences] the murderers of Janine Balding and the girls from Tathra? [I lost a work girlfriend 25 years ago from murder and the guy never charged] despite pressure placed on government bodies for many years.

By the way, Politicians are responsible for the lenient sentences whereby many of these criminals have been let off scott free mixing in our society.

Park the responsibility of non-addressed crimes firmly and squarely where they belong TBC - within the legal [government] and political arenas.

Its of no use blaming one Cardinal Pell as an accessory or cause of crimes committed by some of the catholic priests and brothers over the years. The man obviously never knew how widespread the criminal activity was for many years.

Nor is it correct to blame regular or irregular church goers listening to a Mass for .45minutes out of their week.

we are unique.

Good to hear that absolutely no one is ever responsible for anything.

I'll recall your sage advice for 'next time'.

You missed my points TBC.

The comparison is that if Australians over past years never took a 'community' responsibility towards their young innocent people murdered, how will Australian catholics, a Cardinal, Politicians, Government or other Australians ever bother to take time out of their lives to address all of the crimes committed by the Catholic Church Hierarchy.

Thats it for my viewpoint in a nutshell, one in which, I have experienced for at least half of my life.

Best wishes.