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.