Comments by the Pope on a Latin American visit regarding politicians and abortion leave me wondering if the conflict of interest for the Federal Health minister as a practicing Catholic has passed the point where he can legitimately keep that portfolio.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=51031

An earlier letter expressing the popes views included the text
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2530790.ece
"There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war or applying the death penalty but not however with regard to abortion or euthanasia," he wrote. "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal co-operation [with the sin] becomes manifest" - in other words, when a Catholic politician actively campaigns in favour of these "grave sins" - "he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin".

The material I've seen seems to refer to politicians who vote in favour of abortion or actively campaign for it - something Tony Abbot is unlikey to do but as health minister the Popes statements would seem to place our health minister in a compromised position.

R0bert

Well, not necessary R0bert. The Health Ministers duties are to manage the sector and apply the governments policies. He doesnt have to agree with the policies. As you suggest, if he were to actively campaign in favour of abortion, he would have a compromise. But he doesnt have to if thats the position of the party in general - he can leave it to others to do the campaigning, and just be stuck with enforcing the party's policy on the matter. If he were to go against party policy, he'd be kicked out quickly enough.

Country Gal, that gets a lot trickier where his powers give him discression. As minister he is heavily involved in funding decisions and decisions about ancillary services (counselling etc). It probably comes down to how he interprets the popes comments - I suspect that catholic politicians may feel an obligigation to do everything within their power to hinder access to abortion.

R0bert

Nice find. Faith is for many Christians and Catholics (or most), an ornament worn on the lapel or shirt sleeve. Divorce, abortion, contraception, gay believers and and female priests, are all normal aspects of their lives. Jesus Christ will be rolling in his 'grave' at every mass

RObert, this is a very interesting topic, thank you.

“The man who should have been the Pope” (in my opinion anyway) is the Italian cardinal Carlo Maria Martini.
An article about him:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4459805.stm
“Cardinal Martini has certainly had a high profile, and has not been afraid to suggest that it is time for changes in the way the Church is run.”
“Cardinal Martini says the Church must face up to the problems of modern life, including such issues as sexuality, divorce, the celibacy of the priesthood, and the role of women in the Church.”

Back to reality- we’re stuck with a conservative, traditional pope.
If the medieval demands of this Pope are becoming a danger to democracy, and if his organisation keeps intervening in politics, perhaps they should be subject to excommunication from our laws.
How would he like to receive a threat like that?

I think that non-liberal Catholic religion and politics can mix ony to a certain extend.
When it comes to Human Rights issues, in particular procreation including abortion, their opinion automatically will become equal to their religion’s stand.

Most strict religious people, especially those who uphold the traditional and conservative views of that religion, will identify with that religion. Their personality cannot be loose from their religious believes.
They cannot possibly make choices where life issues are concerned.

Yes you are right and by the framers of the constitution they made it quite clear that church and state where to be seperate.

As for those reasons you have spoken.
If they want to be religious thats what they have churches for.

It all a constitutional thing.

www.tapp.org.au

I see what you are saying R0bert. But I would have thought that the numbers of abortions performed annually in this country would be testament to the fact that he is not having THAT big an influence on the decision. We certainly saw his approach to the RU486 pill as being a manifestly religious one. However, the resultant uproar I think went to show that the wheels of democracy can still work when religion is involved, as there will be few that will forget his stance in future years. It will forever be held against him (or for him in the opinions of some).

Country Gal, I'd be trying to remember the number that went with RU all afternoon ;(.

I've not followed up on dates but the reading I've done suggests that the statements I refered to are not really anything new in concept. While the Health Minister had sole discression regarding RU486 he was possibly in a position where he faced excommunication if he had allowed it's use. That would seem to be a clear conflict of interest. Did he know he faced that risk? Did the archbishop point it out in their meetings? I don't know.

That was also a power that he campaigned hard to keep rather than relinquishing.

That's one example where the issue did go public and a lot of taxpayer dollars were spent in the process of placing that power where it more properly belonged. His position gives him power in a lot of situations which are not so easy to tie down - funding for councelling services is a topical one which comes to mind.

Individuals holding public office will always face issues regarding their personal values and the conduct of the office. In this case where an external party has made a clear and specific threat directed against politicians on a particular issue the situation seems to become more clear cut.

R0bert

Celivia,

Thank God, that Josef Ratzinger did become Pope. He is a true man of God, and I'm not even a Catholic.

Someone mentioned the constitution and separation of church and state. Separation of church does not mean that Christian believers could not inform their decisions as parliamentarians by their Christian faith, in fact the framers of the Constitution expected that they would. They expected and hoped that Parliamentarians would be people of strong Christian faith and make decisions in line with that.

Separation of Church and State means that no one Christian denomination/religion (that was when denominations were referred to as religions) would become the "State" church as the Anglican Church is in England or the Lutheran Church in the Scandinavian countries, or the Catholic Church in other countries.

RaggedtyAnnie

RaggedtyAnnie,
Separation of Church and State, this does not necessarily mean that the Church has no influence on politics. The reason, or principle, of this separation was designed to protect freedom of religion from the state, not vice versa.
What can the state (or politics) do to guarantee its freedom FROM religion?

On some issues, such as same sex marriage and euthanasia, the religious right have had a big influence, resulting in religious values demanding priority over human rights.
And why is it that in the job network, church-conducted employment agencies have been allowed to take over the government’s Commonwealth employment service?

I find that the Australian government is linking (Christian!) church and state.
Religion schould not be excluded from the anti-discrimination Act. Did you know that Australian religous schools are exempted from some of the aspects of the discrimination Act, eg. they have the right to discriminate against sex and homosexuals?

Freedom of religion should only be allowed if it doesn't interfere wiht the freedom of others, in my opinion.

And what is so good about Ratzinger?
The man is mega-conservative.

The reasons I am not wild about him is for several reasons.
He condemns contraception.
More unwanted children, more AIDS.
One must be extremely ignorant or uncaring to condemn safe sex.

His vision on divorce?
This takes us right back into the last century.

His opinion that Roman Catholicism is the only right religion?
That isn't helping ecumenical cooperation during the age of globalization and worldwide communications.

His vision on abortion?
The new 'pregnancy supporting' services are not stopped from misleading women- some of them do not even include the abortion option.

His view on euthanasia?
Denying elderly and very sick people the right to die a dignified death is cruel.

His opinion that anyone not believing in the Pope is not a real Christian?
Then the vast majority of people, even the religious (e.g. protestants cannot count on a place in heaven.

His view on homosexuality?
Another human right denied.

Tell me what is so appealing about this Pope because I haven’t discovered his appeal yet.

The most damaging religion in Australian Politics is secular humanism. It lacks any moral absolutes and results in death. Agnotics and athiest are its keenist disciples! Really it is the worship of self.

"It lacks any moral absolutes and results in death."

A bit like real life really.

Abbott is part of the current gummint and the current gummint does not do representative democracy. Populism occasionally, but not representativeness.

Representative, informed democracy is on hold in this country. Abbott's conflict is not so much a cause as it is one of the symptoms.

Well said, Chainsmoker.

Runner, countries with the most liberal abortion laws have the lowest abortion rates.
Making abortion more difficult to obtain is the most ineffective strategy a government can possibly opt for.

If Abbott et al are serious about lowering the abortion rate in Australia, they have to look at statistics and facts.

In The Netherlands, contraception is free for all women and effective and realistic sex education is a compulsory part of the curriculum in all schools.
These measures are the most effective way of lowering abortion rates- only about 6 in every 1000 women have an abortion (lowest in the world).

There is much to learn from the results other countries have achieved. If we blindly follow the pope’s advice (or the USA's!) about not promoting contraception and little or no sex education, we’ll be increasing our abortion rates.

The government spends much money on pregnancy counseling- why not spend this on free contraception instead. Problem solved!
The religious right could never top these results.

Abbott is not the only politician tainted by fundamentalist Christian “morals”.
Christopher Pyne denies our suffering elderly people the right to die with dignity. The book titled The Peaceful Pill was recently taken off the bookshelves in Australia, which just shows how much the religious “morals” mess with the freedom of Australians. How moral is it to force people to die slowly and painfully?

In the meantime, they're not bothered about the plight of our animals in live exports and intensive farming. Animal laws haven't been updated for over 100 years.

According to the new Vision for Europe, good values are not those of a single culture or religion, but are universal.

From the Brussels Declaration https://www.iheu.org/v4e/html/the_declaration.html

“We affirm the right of everyone to adopt and follow a religion or belief of their choosing. But the beliefs of any group may not be used to limit the rights of others.”

“We hold that the state must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief, favouring none and discriminating against none.”

Celivia, "Abbott is not the only politician tainted by fundamentalist Christian “morals”." - true but I think that this particular issue is different. Whatever politicians we have they will in the view of those who think differently be tainted (fundy christian values, liberal christain values, islamic values, budist values, secular humanist, feminist, paternalist etc). That's just part of the political process.

In this particular case it appears to me that we have a case of someone making a clear cut threat against politicians who don't tow the line. We have a situation where the health ministers expressed beliefs would appear to place him in a compromised position. For those who believe in the authority of the pope just how serious is a threat of excommunication? We don't allow pollies to be involved in decisions where they have a personal interest (we try not to anyway), the threat made by the pope would seem to make it a very personal issue for the health minister.

I'm assuming that excommunication is a fairly big deal for a catholic.

R0bert

Celivia

I am in agreement that you legislating for morality has limited benefits. The nature of man is that as soon as you produce forbidden fruit you can be sure that he or she will then crave for it whether it is good or bad for him. It does not take long for people to demand legalising something even if they know it will kill them.

The vision of Europe that you mention is noble but totally impractical. The rights of one group always affects others. It fails to understand that the heart of man has a bias towards evil. To assume all cultures and religions are worthy of acceptance might make people feel good but just displays ignorance. I would imagine that Marxism on paper is a noble goal also.

Like Europes new vision, Marxism failed to reconise whether a person is religous or not they are corruptible. We see this clearly today in the UN, Religous organisations, among scientist and every other organisation on earth.

The most important aspect of this issue is to do with separating the personal views of the individuals from their political responsibilities to the community at large. This also means that if a person is in a position of power over other people's lives that to the best of their own knowledge, they refrain from using their professional authority to impose their own personal moral priorities over others. This is not always easy to do in the health field because cultural and religious beliefs hold varying definitions of notions such as health life and death. There are however, established definitions associated with established groups in society. It would be wrong to expect that the way in which a catholic views life should be imposed on an atheist. The laws should be open enough to ensure that everyone's beliefs are accommodated and that the professionals in the health field put aside their own personal views by consulting the most appropriate social group when determining the most applicable definition in each individual case.

RObert,
I mentioned Christopher Pyne because like Abbott he is a Catholic also.
Even though he is the Minister for Ageing and won’t have much to do with the abortion issue, he is a strong euthanasia opponent. He would be in a just as compromised position as Abbott is in.

While the Pope has just warned politicians about the abortion issue, we could expect him to ‘warn’ or threaten politicians with excommunication about any other life issue including euthanasia, also.

I am not sure about the seriousness of this ‘warning’ or threat for our Australian Catholic ministers.
I could understand that a pope would warn Catholic priests not to support abortion or euthanasia, but popes should have no place to make these threats to politicians especially not in countries that are secular or not primarily Catholic.

It’s distressing to think that an ultra conservative Pope could indirectly influence our policies.

Why would the Pope have threatened politicians in the first place? There must have been some Catholic politicians in governments who have been supported a pro-choice abortion bill or the Pope wouldn’t have needed to make this threat.

His threat is discriminative because there are Catholic non politicians who openly don’t have an objection against abortion. These people haven’t been threatened with excommunication; the pope just targets one group: politicians.

My view *at this stage* is that a Catholic politician should change their power base or portfolio if their current one has to do anything with life issues for they don’t even have the right to consider all POV’s- they have one POV: the pope’s.

It is important that all fundamental politicians before an election wear stickers with their religion on their forehead.
Knowing that a candidate will vote, under any circumstance, pro-life and not pro-choice is important to be aware of.

Runner,
I see your point, but I am not sure that I agree that the nature of humans is basically evil. I do, however, think that imposing the view of one particular group on other groups is not right. We can only try to minimise the incidence with which some groups interfere with the freedom of other groups. It’s a good aspiration.

Vivy,
I agree, politicians should be able to separate their personal views from their political responsibilities and it looks like the pope has made this impossible for Catholic ministers.
I wonder if Catholic ministers should have a place in the government if they have to deal with life issues.

Celivia, "Why would the Pope have threatened politicians in the first place? There must have been some Catholic politicians in governments who have been supported a pro-choice abortion bill or the Pope wouldn’t have needed to make this threat." The latest remarks (the ones which drew my attention) were apparently the result of him being asked about a similar threat made by Mexican bishops. There was an earlier issue resulting from John Kerry's "after more than a dozen American bishops said they would not give him communion because he had voted for abortion." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2530790.ece

"My view *at this stage* is that a Catholic politician should change their power base or portfolio if their current one has to do anything with life issues" - agreed. I think that the popes remarks have made holding a portfolio impacted by those coments untenable for catholic politicians, and for that matter voting on abortion related issues.

Not so much for the inability to consider other peoples POV, most of our pollies don't seem to do well at that (or so it seems if they don't do what we want).

We don't and should not allow pollies to have a role in or vote on decisions in which they hold a personal stake and excommunication would seem to be a pretty big personal stake.

I heard the other day that the Rudds are taking steps to have their share portfolio transfered into a blind trust, not sure how you do that with church decrees.
R0bert

"but popes should have no place to make these threats to politicians especially not in countries that are secular or not primarily Catholic.
It’s distressing to think that an ultra conservative Pope could indirectly influence our policies."

Great point Celivia! Its also the reason why I attack the Vatican
on OLO, for its well known that they strongly disagree with us on
this and try to influence politics as much as they can, wherever
they can. They are a very political religion! The easiest way of
course to influence the law in various countries, is to put pressure
on Catholic politicians. I mean, excommunication could mean no
ticket to heaven! For those who strongly believe, thats a powerfull
armtwister. IMHO its misusing religion for political gain.

Hi Yabby, long time no see, glad you joined the discussion. Agree about the misuse of religion.

Well said, RObert. This would be a huge personal stake, a vested interest.

People,
I am confused since I came across the following Times article yesterday
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1618930,00.html

“Reporters … took his comments to mean that he endorsed the comments by Mexican churchmen that the lawmakers should be excommunicated.
But the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later issued a statement approved by the pope clarifying the remarks. The statement said the pope did not intend to excommunicate anyone. Politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion, Lombardi said.
"Since excommunication hasn't been declared by the Mexican bishops, the pope has no intention himself of declaring it," said Lombardi, who was on board the plane. "Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. ... Politicians exclude themselves from Communion." ”

continued

They are saying that Ratzinger has not threatened to excommunicate the politicians, that his words were misinterpreted by the media.

Being excluded from communion, as far as I know, means that sinners have to confess their sin and then will be able to be part of communion again.
Excommunication is the ultimate punishment, it’s like being expelled.

Does that mean that Abbott would be able to vote in favour of abortion without jeopardizing his place in heaven- as long as he confesses this sin?
Is this really how it goes?
“Oops, sorry, I voted in favour of abortion, won’t do it again.”

The reason of my confusion is that someone who strictly belongs to the Catholic religion cannot ever personally vote in favour of abortion without instantly sinning whether they’re being excommunicated or not. This might count for other strict or fundamental religions as well.
If they do vote pro-abortion, then they do something that's very incompatible with their religion and they’re better off choosing a different religion (or none at all).
Why would you choose to be a Catholic if you don't agree with their stand on life issues?
You wouldn’t vote in favour of abortion if you wouldn’t believe it was right to do so.

I’m not that familiar with Catholicism but from what I understand is that with all these extra chances like confessions of sins it’s just like being on a strict carrot-only diet and secretly indulging in a chocolate bar; then, after having it wolved down, regretting it and making yourself run a mile to work the calories off.
You can keep sinning this way forever as long as you run the extra mile after the sin of eating the bar.

That’s probably why there are so many sinners in the Catholic religion- do something wrong and there’s always confession!
How moral is that?

"Why would you choose to be a Catholic if you don't agree with their stand on life issues?"

Long story there Celivia, but you'll find that there is actually an
enormous Catholics for choice movement. The way I've understood
it, the claim is that the Church was kind of hijacked by one sided
extremists. When the pope of the time brought in his Humanea Vitea,
which was all about this stuff, it seems the Vatican advisors were
saying that even the pill should be approved. JP2 was then a cardinal,
with a fanatical passion about this issue, due to his childhood.

He gave the pope of the time his radical solution and in gratitude
was elected as the next pope. JP2 then surrounded himself with
likewise thinking cardinals, which led to the election of the
present papa, who belongs to the same extremist club.

95% of people stay with the religion they were born with and were indoctrinated in. All I've ever read is that most Catholic ignore
Church teachings on family planning, abortion etc.

What amused me about the Brazil situation, is that the present papa
was lamenting that Brazilians were leaving the Catholic Church, to
join other Christian Churches. If his main concern was preaching
the Jesus story, surely he would be happy that they'd still go to
heaven! So its my opinion that the Vatican exists primarly to
increase its own power, influence and continuation through ever
more true believers. People accepting the Jesus story is clearly
not their primary motivation.

Celivia, there does seem to be some confusion about that. You will notice that the first site I referenced was a catholic worl news service. The current commentary seems to suggest that pollies are excluding themselves from communion until they renounce their previous actions/stance.

That still seems to leave a serious personal stake in the issue for catholic pollies.

I've been pondering parallels. The examples I've thought of are slightly more at arms length than this issue and just involve money rather than an immortal soul.

A pollie who supports mining and development would be allowed to hold a portfolio and vote on actions involving mining, one who held shares in a company which would be impacted by the decision would not be allowed to do so.

A pollie who loved the environment could be the environment minister but a pollie who held shares in an eco-tourism venture would not be able to vote on measures which impacted on the venture.

A prime minister who's wife ran a major employment business would have to take some serious measures to ensure that he was not seen to be involved in decisions which impacted on his wifes business (and that his cronnies did not see helping her business along as a way to gain favour).

R0bert

Yabby,
thanks for explaining.
Perhaps Ratzinger believes that only Catholics go to heaven : )

>A man dies and goes to heaven. St.Peter gives him a tour around the place. They proceed down a long hallway and come to a door. The man hears much laughter and clinking of glasses and pouring of wine. He asks St.Peter what is behind the door. St.Peter answers, "Oh, that's just the Presbyterians."
They come to another door and the man hears singing, praises, and loud gospel music. "Oh, that's just the Baptists," he assures the man.
They proceed down the hall, and another door appears. However, when they reach this door, St.Peter warns the man to be very, very quiet. "Why?" the man asks.
"Because," St. Peter whispers, "that's the Catholics, and they think they're the only ones up here!" <

RObert,
agreed, no matter how much we toss and turn the Catholic pollies, they are still left with a personal stake in life issue matters.

I came across a year 2000 USA article from Catholic Church’s perspective titled “The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership.” Not very recent but nevertheless the topic is relevant to the one we’re discussing here and has a few interesting paragraphs. It also shows that Yabby is right in his statement that there is support for abortion from Catholics.

There seems to be a lot of division among Catholics on the abortion issue. The article takes us back to the times of the Kennedy Catholics and of Bill Clinton, who simply stood by his decision to oppose the banning of partial birth abortions in spite of the pressure by all the nation’s cardinals. It also confirms that Catholics are confused about their view on abortion.

It surprised me that I read, “In most cases, it would likely be a mistake for bishops to excommunicate individual office holders or publicly deny them access to the Eucharist pursuant to provisions of canon law authorizing such a denial to those who persist in manifest, grave sin.”

"So its my opinion that the Vatican exists primarly to
increase its own power, influence and continuation through ever
more true believers. People accepting the Jesus story is clearly
not their primary motivation.”

Absolutely agree with this yabby - the story of Jesus is very simple and can be boiled down to: treat others as you wish to be treated - with Jesus being the 'embodiment' of a such a philosophy.

It is the same message at the core of most major religious groups and is known as "The Golden Rule"

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

When I hear extremists from the Christian right pontificate, it seems hard to imagine that they are even aware of the rule. If such 'righteous' people put even half the amount of energy into decrying the politicians who kill 'live' children (in Iraq for example) then they might begin to develop a smidgen of credibility.

Its worth remembering that Jesus sought to bring disparate groups together in an environment fraught with conflict. The early Chrsitians, for example, transcended race - all people are equal. The modern Church, seemingly emboldened by the rise of evangelicals and the Chrsitian right in America, contrary to the example of Jesus, now seek to persecute and demonise others in a classic attempt to divide and rule people.

Well said, K£vin, nice to see you're posting here!

I found an ABC transcript, an interview with Abbott about RU486 (2006) which is still relevant to this discussion.

RObert, is there a specific reason why you wanted to focus on Abbott, because this same thing may well apply to other Catholic politicians, like Christopher Pyne and to politicians adhering to other religions/denominations who use their religion for political purposes.

This thread has the potential for a discussion on separation between Church and state.
What, for example, if we had a Jehovah’s Witness minister of health? Would his decisions about blood transfusion services be based on his faith?

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1566498.htm
TONY ABBOTT: "Well, obviously I do have some views which I have expressed. But my views on abortion are pretty much in sync with the views that have expressed over the years by such diverse people as the Dalai Lama and Mohandas K. Ghandi. There's nothing necessarily Catholic about my views on abortion. But in any event as a minister of the Crown Kerry, any decision that I make is based on ordinary rational principles of Government."

Ghandi's view about contraception and abortion was mainly based on religious (Hindu) dogma as well. Probably, all religions overlap somewhere, especially where life issues are concerned.
I do believe that Ghandi's reasons for opposing abortion are slightly different than that of the Catholics- not 100% sure but I recall that Ghandi stressed that people should take responsibility for their actions (abortion would mean escaping responsibilities) and he thought that the creation of unwanted children is a lesser sin than escaping responsibilities.

Anyway, whatever Ghandi or the Dalai Lama said, Abbott here is just misleading people- he mentions other (generally liked) religious leaders who agree with him on this issue so he can convince non-Catholic voters that he arrived at his opinion with an open mind, free from Catholic dogma and based on rational principles.

No matter whether some areas of other religions overlap with Catholicism or not, Abbott is still in a compromised position when it comes to life issues.