Really just wanted to know if anyone checks this.

Post a comment!

Elephants and the Jewish Problem. Koshers Ham it Up

In our last post we discussed the Good Friday prayers in the Latin Mass, after which there followed a highly entertaining debate in the combox about Halal laws and Harems. We hope we can continue the high standard of conversation with this post as well.

So this Pope has gone and re-written the prayers for the Jewish people in the Good Friday Liturgy connected with the Old Latin Mass (AKA "Tridentine Mass", "Traditional Roman Rite", "Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite", "Latin Mass", "Mass of Pius V", "Mass of All Ages", and "That Pre Vatican II sham they called Mass"). He removed those Elijah-esque words such as "blindness" and "veils", but still said that we'd like them to convert if possible. Here's someone's English translation:

Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.
Let us pray. (Kneel, Rise)

Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fulness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Much nicer, I think. But "The Jews" are concerned about this - and of course we should expect it to be so. Such violent language about Saviors and propitiousness is enough to furrow the hardiest brow, and that's just on spellings and pronunciations. But more than that - apparently they don't like the idea of being converted.

Now we used to all agree on this point. They want us to stop being Christian, and we want them to be Christian. That way, no matter who wins we can all be Companions on the Journey. And it makes sense - we either think we're onto a good thing and offer it to others, or we change. But noooooo, somewhere along the way some geniuses decided that that it's now "Harem" to talk about such things altogether. You can see why the good rabbis are confused.

For reactions from the various Catholic Korners, see our last post - it's pretty much the same this time with the following variations. Fr Z had bucatini alla matriciana and steak with a Gorgonzola sauce, along with some Sagrantino. (I don't think he did that last time).

Now interestingly, this is the first real change made to the "1962 Missal" since (guess!) 1962. So does that make it the "2008 Missal"? On this question and many others, the Vatican has been suspiciously silent.


For discussion, please consider the following. How often have you been out to dinner and had pasta as an entree, followed by steak? They keep suggesting this at La Porchetta, but I've rarely seen it done.

Latin Mass

Since we're at the forefront of breaking news here at Catholic Australia, I thought I'd say a thing or two about one of the recent "Motu Proprios" of Pope Beniedict. Yes, the Latin Mass one. Now, instead of being able to say the Tridentine Mass whenever the bishop says they can, priests can now just go ahead and do it without asking. This cuts out a lot of paperwork and saves some trees in the Amazon. It should come as no surprise that this occurs at the same time as the Vatican aims to become the world's first carbon neutral state.

This document has been indisputably a most unitive document. That is, it has provided a forum for absolutely everyone to say their bit, and reaffirm what their basic approach to life is. So who should we expect to hear from? Let's see . . .

In the lavendar corner representing the happy, friendly "In the essentials, Hippy, in the inessentials, Groovy and in all things Liberty" type people, we have, 70's bishops, embittered ex-priests, fashionable nuns, and of course The Pill, arguing that it's a bad thing because no one should be allowed to ever use a language with so many words sounding like "wuss". Childhood memories, you know. One bishop is crying like a girl. (Some say he's crying like a pefectly respectable "Emotional Mediterranean" but I think it's more like a girl). Others think it's the end of Vatican II, and most are justifiably fearing the spanish inquisition, because, I mean, you never know with that lot, do you? Meanwhile, Captain Jean-Luc Picard is worried about Klingons in the wine-cellar.

In the Beer, Scotch and Shiraz corner, representing people who are happy and well-adjusted, we have Archbishops Chaput and Hart, the Fraternity of St Peter and suchlike. The head honchos tend to smile mildly and repeat a lot of what the Pope said, while the Traditionalist groups who use the Tridentine Mass, get understandably excited.

Then there's the Sour Grapes corner, representing mostly the parents of the kids led astray by Woodstook. "About bloody time, and anyway it's not enough!" they say. Well, who can argue with that?

Finally we have the "kosher corner", made famous by the Brooklyn cafe of the same name. The main concern here is the prayer used on Good Friday in the 1962 missal. Here, the Jews are no longer called "perfidious" as they were in the '50's, but they are still referred to as "blind" and having a veil on their hearts. Now that's way more ecumenical, perhaps, than their own Elijah was with the prophets of Baal, but then we like to think things are different today.

In Melbourne, we've had the FSSP provide the Tridentine Mass for years, and some other priests before them, so it probably won't change much here. But perhaps it removes some of the stigma from the Latin Mass movement, and may - or may not - encourage others to give it a go. We'll see.

In any case, every issue relating to this topic is ably covered by "Fr Z" in Rome.

Poms and Aussies, Anglicans and Catholics.

Well we all know a lot of Anglicans with English accents. That is only proper and fitting after all.

But some years ago it occurred to me that there are Catholic priests out there with Anglican accents. No, not English accents, just Anglican. They sound quite Australian, in fact. But very very Anglican.

Perhaps the most extreme form of this phenomenon is the priest who calls the Third Person of the Trinity "the Hoely Spirit". But even before you go that far, you can her a spiffing sermon on the Holy Feast of the Assumption which correctly and eloquently conveys the true Catholic meaning, all delivered gently and happily in the finely-polished style of elocution we could expect from a gentlemen who would be quite at home in a place referred to as "Cantebury" with all four syllables. It is always crisp and clear, with an ever-so-slight rolling of the r's, and an overal kind of lulling tunefulness about it.

There is only one word I can give it, and that is "Anglican". I first realised this one morning at the Cathedral, but have since seen it in certain Dominicans and other priests. I find it a fascinating thing.

More recently, I found that the inverse can also occur. Watching The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy one night, my wife noticed some Catholic-seeming imagery and references. "What religion was Douglass Adams?" she asked. I could only really give one answer. "English".

Boring and Tired Excuses

In reading an article in the Virginian Pilot, there was an opinion piece by some clown called Roger Chesley. The same tired old excuse came out (no pun intended) about the Church's stance on homosexuality,

'If we are all God's creation, I am what he made," Matthew said. "If he made me with these feelings, who am I to question?'

This is a boring, un-insightful and fallacious argument and reasoning. Under the same logic, what about paedophiles? Hmmm, I guess they believe God made them that way so arrr.....who are they to question these 'feelings'? Having an inclination towards a particular sexual act doesn't make it ok nor does it mean 'God made you that way'. It goes against the very Natural Law that God created. The Church's teaching would not be that homosexuality was created by God, but rather it is a consequence of our flawed world after Original Sin. Much in the same way that there are schizophrenics, mentally ill, disabled and every other disorder and disease that exists in our world.

Whether it be an attraction to goats, same sex relations or children, please, please don't bring up that argument again.....

Extreme laws; extreme comparisons

Today Dr Josef Mengele would be 95. A doctor by profession, he was a member both of the Nazi party and of the feared SS. Following injury on the Eastern Front in 1942, he applied for and received a transfer as a medical office to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp. During his 21 month stay there, he gained a deserved reputation as one of history’s blackest monsters.

Dr Mengele was interested in issues of hereditary and physical abnormality. To further his research, he used inmates of the camp in a series of bizarre experiments of highly questionable value. Common to all of them was his complete disregard for his subjects. To him, the subjects were not human beings, but simply the raw materials for his experiments…
On Tuesday (Melbourne Cup Day) the Australian Senate voted (34-32) to pass a bill authorising the cloning of human embryos for use in medical research, particularly for the extraction of embryonic stem cells. In a late amendment, it was decided to prohibit human-animal hybrids. Apart from this, in a gesture that extends far beyond the realms of mere irony, the key ‘restrictions’ placed on scientists were that the embryos could not be implanted into a woman and, instead, had to be destroyed by the time they reached 14 days of age. A whole legal class of human beings was thereby created. Not only do they have no human rights, but scientists are actually obliged to kill them.

Common to all the advocates of this bill (which is expected to pass in the House of Representatives fairly easily) is a complete disregard for the subjects of the legislation. To them, the subjects are not human beings, but simply the raw materials for their experiments…

Is this a fair comparison? Obviously advocates of the bill think not… and passionately reject it. And, from one perspective, they have a point. Dr Mengele’s experiments were amazingly evil and fatuous, including attempts to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes, various amputations of limbs and attempts to create artificially conjoined twins by sewing two young children together back-to-back. By contrast, the bill’s advocates are motivated to facilitate research into potential treatments for a variety of terrible diseases and conditions.
But it is a terrible blindness that prevents them from seeing the reality of what they are advocating. The creation of a living human being for the express purpose of using it for research or organ donation is horrific. The subsequent ‘destruction’ is, simply, the killing of an innocent human life. After all the tragedies of the twentieth century, how did we fall this far?

My Seminarians are Holier than Yours!

Not shy to name names, Michael Gilchrist of AD2000 fame calls Queensland the "worst state" for attracting students to the seminary, in his new book "LOST!".

I haven't read it, but I expect Gilchrist draws on the success of the recent TV series, and has the Catholic reader imagine himself marooned in Brisbane. Depending on its success, I expect it will spawn a TV series of its own - a kind of "Suspense Thriller" type arrangement, always leaving you wondering what's going to come down the aisle in the next episode.

Now you'd think Queenslanders would admit that they're not doing so well. Bringing 7 chips to the table against your opponent's 44 is not a good start to Texas Hold'em. But it's not all about numbers, says the local Arch, as reported in Cathnews. No, Your Grace - one of the most important skills in this game is knowing how to bluff.

"I have no desire for candidates to priesthood who wish to take the Church back to a past certainly noted for its numbers, but sadly uncovered in more recent times its sinfulness,"

But his bluff backfires a little . . .

So in "the so-called golden past" the seminaries were only full because they were full of such sinful people? How terrible! So where are all these godless reprobates now?

Well I dunno! Where do seminarians go when they graduate?

Umm . . . (cough!) staffing your parishes, your Grace! Yes, these multitudinous olden-golden boys you collectively malign are the lifeblood of your diocese today. Are they good enough to get through your stringent quality-control process? If not, why are they still here? And if they are, doesn't it mean that back in their years of seminary, things were going just a little better?

The quality vs quantity argument is little more than a diversion, and it doesn't work. Either he thinks that back then, like now, they only ever got about one good solid ordination a year - and hence most of his priests today are useless - or he must admit that today we're going backwards. Surely even back then we could muster up 2 good eggs a year -which doubles today's throughput!

Moving on, Archbishop Bathersby sees the answer to all his problems is to be found in his latest "vision" and hippy-inspired spin-out logo - just as soon as the peons like you and me "get it".
"Once people grasp the excitement of the Jesus, Communion, and Mission emphasis of the Archdiocese, vocations to priesthood and religious life will flow again" he says.

Here we show said logo, with apologies.




Ah yes - once people finally grasp what we're on about they'll all come flocking. Once they nurse their eyes from the throbbing, hypnotic, swirling mass of firey reds and yellows they will realise how horrifying it could be to be engulfed by such ferocious colours for eternity! Surely they will do anything to avoid such a prospect! Who said fire-and-brimstone preaching was dead?

I mean, take a look at this. Doesn't it make you want to become a bishop?

Just so you can change it?

The Great East-West Divide

No, I am not talking about the differences and division between Christians and Muslims. This time I am talking about the Roman Catholic and Eastern Othodox divide. An article written here states the intention to go forward in discussions between the two churches. That the Church 'would breathe with both of its lungs' has been a great wish of many Catholics since the Schism.

The positive note in the article is that they appear to really wish to tackle the issue of papal primacy. This is the main point of contention that is unfortunately dividing the Churches. Of course, some Eastern Rite Churches have rejoined Rome but the majority are still yet to come home.

Please pray that we regain all our long lost Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.

Catholic/Anglican School

I wonder what they teach about the Eucharist here......?

Creation vs Evolution

Ever since Noah smuggled a Tyrannosaurus or two onto the ark, evolution has been a major point of contention among Christians. More than one person has suggested that it was, like Vatican II, on the whole a really bad idea. But while we all remember the good old days swinging from the trees wearing nought but our fig-leaves, very few of us would happily return there if given the choice. Besides, there's that flaming sword holding us back.

But what are we to make of it as a theory? Is it compatible with the Bible or does it ruin the whole story? Or, as most people are secretly thinking, can I simultaneously avoid being a fanatic, a modernist, a troglodyte, a heretic, a rationalist, anti-science and anti-religion? Is it possible to have no enemies at all?

Probably not. But on this webpage we probably just want to avoid being un-Catholic and un-Australian, Otherwise we have to come up with a new URL.

For Catholics, the short answer is - YES you can believe in Evolution - provided you also believe in God . . . and a few other things. . . The body may have evolved, but the soul is directly created by God. God is ultimately the author of all things, and designed all things. Life is not accidental. The Bible is infallible (though not always literal).

Pope Pius XII was not the first to say so, but his encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 which allowed for the possibility of studying and teaching evolution within certain limits, was probably the first with any significant magisterial clout.

The magisterium of the Church does not forbid that, . . , research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God." [HG 36]

Of course it's cautious - not enthusiastically supporting evolution but allowing the investigation. He goes on to insist that

• Both sides of the debate should be shown,
• Ultimately Catholics should submit to the judgement of the Church.
• There can only have been one Adam and Eve (no polygenesis)[HG 37]
• Genesis 1-11 may not be written history the way we expect it today, but it still "pertains to history in a true sense" [HG38]
• Exactly in what sense it is to be taken, requires much, careful, study.

So, as to the last two points, don't go calling my Bible a "pious legend" or myth - if you really mean that it's a load of rubbish.

Pope John Paul II gave much stronger support to it in 1996, as might be expected half a century on, with evolution continuing to dominate the science of origins. After he said that evolution was now "more than an hypothesis", there were mixed reactions, mostly misguided. Some were aghast that the Pope was denying a supposedly key principle of Christianity. Others applauded the Pope for "finally adopting evolution into the Church's doctrine". Neither reaction is correct or appropriate. The more appropriate reaction would have been not really to react at all, since it was all fairly standard stuff.

Okay, so if I humbly allow those two guys to run the Church, it seems I'm allowed to believe it. So, to come clean, DO I believe in Evolution? Well, yes. Ish. Probably not as strongly as I believe that the world is round, or that God is 3 persons, one nature, but basically I'm inclined to believe it. Why? Peer group pressure. I've never really cared enough to scour the arguments for and against, but all my mates say it's really good and I'm too embarrassed to go against them. But I'm looking on interestedly to see who comes up with the best bumper sticker

The difficulties are not few, of course. Say we go with a 4 billion year-old earth, and about 150,000 years of humanity (I made that number up). We then have to deal with:

• 6 days of creation?
• Adam and Eve (remember, they must be our first parents)
• Who did Cain marry?
• "sin entered the world through one man". No death before Adam spells trouble for evolution.
• The genealogies in the Bible don't seem to miss too many gaps - but only get us about 6000-7000 years. That leaves 143,000 to fill in somehow.
• And do we have to start the spread of humanity over the world, all over again from Noah, after all that hard work? What if a geologist tells us "no evidence for a flood, sorry?"
  

What then, do we do with Genesis 1-11? Can we "compatiblise" it with Scripture? What about Intelligent Design? Should it be taught in schools? And is this alowance for evolution a "dramatic break with tradition"?

Hey guys, it's Friday night, and I'm going home. I'll have to deal with this stuff later.

New Catholic School in Wagga Wagga

If anyone knows anything more about this school please write in and let CA know!

It sounds like it has potential.

New Evidence of the Shroud Being Ignored

Cathnews.com reports that their is new scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin actually dates back to the time of Christ that is being completely ignored by mainstream media. Read more here.

Nothing is new in that regard, although I can guarantee that if there was evidence to the contrary, it would be front-page news. In a similar fashion to the 'Book of Judas'. There was nothing new with that book other than a lot of media hype and deceit claiming it was new and contained damning revelations.

It is just extraordinary how biased the media is. Why is it that the overwelming majority of the media in every western country are so biased and anti-religious?

Latin America's Changing Identity

Latin America, since the Spanish and Portugese conquistadors arrived, has had an identity intricately linked to Catholicism. Since this time and currently, the great majority of people in the region are Roman Catholics. However, since the 1980's, the Catholic Church has slowly been losing ground to protestant Christians, in particular, Evangelical Christian denominations.

Latin America through the 19th and 20th centuries has had their share of dictators and tyrants, so unfortunately their Catholic identity couldn't prevent that. Today, however, it is the socialist left that are perhaps the biggest threat to Catholic orthodoxy in the region. In the most recent Mexican elections, the socialist party was narrowly defeated by the family and church friendly party. The fact that these elections are close is evidence enough of strong backing that these movements and ideology have in Latin America. Several Latin American countries have socialist governments in power presently.

Abortion is another example of the shifting identity of Latin America. For many years most of the region held laws strictly prohibiting abortion but as it stands at the moment El Salvador and Chile are the only Latin American nations to completely prohibit abortions.

Please pray for Latin America to stay close and true to its Catholic identity.

Cardinal Pell Defends Against the Liberals

Cardinal Pell, the great Australian hero of Catholic Orthodoxy, in an interview with 'AD2000' has defended himself and the Church against malicious snipes by former Director of the Melbourne Catholic Education Office, Fr Frank Martin. Fr Martin in an Opinion article in the 'Sunday Herald Sun' on 18 June, expressed a great deal of views that are in direct contrast to the Church's teachings. In doing so he also personally attacked Cardinal Pell by referring to him as a man who is "about power and control".

In the article Fr Martin pretends to be the real hero, all about accepting everyone. This is an interesting point of view, because that certainly wasn't Jesus' message. When Jesus stopped a women from stoning due to adultery, he didn't say 'that's ok, love. We all sin, it doesn't matter! Chill out!' But instead, he told the woman 'to go away [unharmed] and SIN NO MORE'.

In the Cardinal's words;

'Our Lord certainly understood people in their weakness and he did eat with sinners. But he called them to repentance and a change of heart. He didn't urge them to continue in their bad habits.'

In this whole issue it is just beyond comprehension why he is a priest if he doesn't believe what the church teaches. I couldn't imagine giving up my life for something I didn't believe in.

One of my favourite quotes from the article is;

'A favourite tactic of dissenters is to try to claim the centre ground; to make it appear that they constitute the moderate mainstream of the Church even when denying Catholic doctrines.'

Here we go again, pretending to be the real hero against the 'mighty, oppressive and backward Church'!

Pell also says;

'To leave Fr Martin unanswered would risk giving the impression that his views are part of an acceptable sprectrum. This is not so. They are imprudent dissent.'

Hoorah and excellent! Hopefully Archbishop Hart also either reprimands Fr Martin quite forcefully or speaks out that his views are not correct or representative of the Church.

God Bless defenders of orthodoxy and our faith.

Sacrilegous Movie on St Teresa of Avila

This movie is a disgrace in the same way that 'the Da Vinci Code' is. They are gross lies and really just an excuse to make a movie about sex.

The director, Ray Loriga, says:

"These subjects were considered scandalous then and have not been studied much. They'll probably seem scandalous now, which does not say much for the progress made by the Catholic Church over the past centuries."

Scandalous in terms of their accuracy you silly goose! Are you even aware what the heck a virgin is Mr Lorgia?

A Catholic Italy?

Ex-Italian Prime Minister, Silvio Belusconi, is reported to have said 'we want Italy to be Catholic and of Italians'. Whilst it is just on four months since Berlusconi conceded defeat, it could be argued that Italy did not agree with this attitude. However, results in the election were extremely close and so it is difficult to determine. The Professor of Contemporary European History at the University of Florence, Paul Ginsborg, is Berlusconi's biographer and has stated that Berlusconi is looking at a political comeback. Berlusconi remains the leader of the CDL (Italy's opposition party) and the next election could also be just as close.

Nationalism and tightening immigration laws are gaining a great deal of political clout in Europe over the past decade. Particularly countries such as Holland and France are beginning to be concerned over the amount of Arab Islamic immigration. Not only is the immigration seen as a problem in Europe, but the fact that Muslims appear to be the only group with increasing birth rates beyond replenishing rates. This increases the proportion of the population that are of Arabic descent and of Islamic religion. The culture of both the religions and ethnicities are very different and many Europeans are feeling that the culture of their native countries are changing.

How the Italians enter into this political issue over the coming years will be interesting to observe and it appears that the next election might very well be won and lost on this battle ground.

Cloning can affect votes

According to an article in 'The Age', Fr John Flemming sent a letter to MP's stating that the way they vote on ESCR could well affect the way their constiuents vote. The article states that 51 per cent of Australians are against cloning human embryos as a source of stem cells. Every Catholic needs to write in to their local member of parliament asking for a clear articulation on the way they would vote if presented with a bill. Catholics should also make it known that if their local member was in favour of cloning and ESCR then we would be unable to vote for them. Whilst this might not change the member's point of view on the topic, it may lead them to believe that the issue is too sensitive and politically unstable to support.

Please start your letters now!

Bishop of Parrmatta speaks out on ESCR

Bishop Manning of Parramatta wrote an article on embryonic stem cell reseach (ESCR) on the diocese's web site. It is great to hear bishops in Australia showing great leadership and voicing clear articulations on the unequivocal teachings of the Church. It is great because we are starting to hear the real 'meat and potatoes' of Catholic moral teaching, instead of continuing to hear the politically correct view points of the day. The ESCR debate is much more important than whether Australia should say sorry to the aboriginals. Slowly but surely, the clergy of the tired old 60's and 70's liberation theology are dying out and instead we are being left with passionate and dedicated individuals who truely love the Church as given to us by Christ. The seminaries are filled only with those men that know the Church and know that it is worth fighting for.

The liberal clergy are dying out much in the same way as this article indicates that those on the left side of the political spectrum are.

East Coast Premiers and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks supports therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research(ESCR).

New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma does not support therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cell research but instead supports a ban on the process.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie supports therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

Both Steve Bracks and Morris Iemma are Catholics. Although it would appear that Steve Bracks is just a 'big C Catholic'. Iemma is to be commended and supported as he has come under great pressure and criticism for reversing NSW Labor's policy on liberalising ESCR under Bob Carr.

More information here.

Editorial Note: Arnold the Pig

Last night (22/08/06) on A Current Affair(ACA), there was an article on Arnold the Pig. The owners of Arnold the Pig live in a metropolitan town and their local council is forcing them to get rid of the pig. The story had a live interview with the owner and a group of supporters from the community behind him with placards and signs. The greatest tragedy about the whole issue is the perspective. We have community rallies and interviews with the media about animal rights but almost no media coverage when un-born children are killed in the womb.

This species we call Homo Sapien Sapien needs to wake up and get some perspective. The respect we misplace on animals needs to be re-aligned on the dignity of all human life.

Same Sex Attraction (SSA)

A study in 2002 by Columbia University (here) showed that social factors seemed more prevalent in whether people tend to have SSA. The study went on to point out that there are no detectable genetic conditions so far that determine SSA. Another interesting factor is that according to narth.com, it appears to be more scientific than previous studies on the issue. Previously they have generally used volunteers which is not considered to be the best way of obtaining a sample of the population.

Does this mean that it is SSA is caused by social factors and not genetic factors? No, not necessarily. Very little is truely known about SSA and there is a strong likelihood that it is a combination of both. Perhaps in some cases it is only genetic and in some cases it is social. Essentially from the Church's position, it doesn't matter. There are many things in the world that make us imperfect as a direct result of original sin. We were created as perfect humans in the beginning but when we rejected God, the consequences were that we were separated from God and this resulted in many imperfections in the human race. Death is one example, heart disease and cancer are others just to name a few. Interestingly heart disease can be genetic, but no one seeks to promote heart disease or advocate 'the acceptance' of its affects.

The Church uses the words that it SSA is 'objectively disordered', but what does this mean? Princeton University defines "objective" as 'undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena' (here). Disordered in this sense means outside of order. So the church believes that if we look at homosexuality in an unemotive light, we can see that it is outside of order. How does the church come to this conclusion? Let's firstly look at the issue from a purely biological point of view. Do we, as a species, need sexual attraction? Yes we need sexual attraction to ensure the survival of our species. Every single species on the planet has, as one of their man aims, reproduction. Whether it be sexual or asexual reproduction. Fundamentals of nature such as this are quite often indications of the 'Natural Law' that the Church views as being clear evidence of God's will, design and plan. Secondly, looking beyond the purely biological point of view, God's command in Genesis to the first humans was to 'be fruitful and multiply'. So from God's command we can also deduce that it is important to continue to multiply. This rules out reproduction (ie. sex) as being an evil consequence of Original Sin such as described above with regard to heart disease and death. So how are we to fulfill our biological aims and Divine commands? Sexual intercourse.

If SSA was natural then it would be a characteristic of all people (or at least those with an ordered sexuality) leading to the demise and extinction of the Human Race. Definitively contrary to the rest of nature and definitively contrary to the will of God. As humans need to reproduce sexually (ie not asexually) it is clear that our sexuality needs to be ordered in such away to fulfill the objectives illustrated above. This is the clearest indication of what 'the order' ought to be. In this sense SSA is objectively disordered.

Further, from Church and biblical perspective, in Genesis, God saw Adam was lonely and made a partner for him, but God did not make another male. God made a female for him. This very act can be taken no other way than that man and woman were made for each other.

New Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The new Compendium is out on the Vatican website and can be found here.

Teenager's crucifix banned from school

Featured in The Age and Australian Media was this story;

Teenager's crucifix banned from school
A Christian teenager has been banned from wearing a crucifix by her school.
Jamie Derman, 17, told News Ltd newspapers she was stunned when told to remove her crucifix or she could be suspended.
A Sunbury Downs Secondary College student, Ms Derman's cross is outlawed as part of the multicultural college's new rules on jewellery and dress.
But churches has criticised the ban, saying it discouraged students' religious aspirations.
Ms Derman said she felt discriminated against.
"I am angry, confused and upset," she said.
"I honestly believe I should be allowed to acknowledge (my Christianity). Being told to take it off hurts. It cuts really deep."
The cross had sentimental value because her baptism gifts were missing, Ms Derman said.
"I can't understand why it is not all right for me to wear a cross," she said.
"I honestly felt like crying." Her father, Gordon, said the ban was the equivalent of ordering a female Muslim student to take off a religious head dress.
"Nobody should take offence to anybody wearing a religious sign," Mr Derman said. "She has a right to wear it. I believe it is discriminatory. If we had a Muslim girl come wearing a headscarf, nobody would say `boo' about it."
A reasonable demonstration of one's faith was something Australians should rejoice in, said Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne auxiliary bishop Christopher Prouse. "People's religious aspirations need to be respected," Bishop Prouse said.
Sunbury Downs principal Brett Moore said teachers had enforced the new dress code. "It is not my decision, it is the policy," he said. "Necklaces should not be visible"

Correction to this story, it was actually a cross NOT a crucifix! But hey, who's counting?!
Another typical story of political correctness gone crazy.

Yoga

Visit here.

Very, very funny!

Illogical Abortion

The great majority of people in Australia would be in favour of abortion in one way or another. Whether it be those saying 'well, it should only be allowed for early term fetuses' or those who say 'in the case of rape or incest it should be allowed at any stage'. Further to this, I find that deep down these people actually know there is something fundamentally wrong with it by the mere fact that also the great majority of people would say 'I would never have it, but it should be available in extreme circumstances'. This tends to be an implicit acknowledgement of the real evil of abortion. If there was nothing wrong with it then why would so many people say they themselves would never have it?
There is no doubt that abortion is a mass genocide on a larger scale than the Jewish Holocaust of WWII.

I wish to address the irrational argument of what I perceived to be the reasoning of the majority of people who are in favour of it. Robert P George addressed this well in a comical letter to First Things:

'I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice. '

Why Vegetarians Should Be Allowed to Eat Meat

Allow me to delve into the logic of liberal Catholicism:

"Why Vegetarians Should Be Allowed to Eat Meat
by Dan Coyne

How can any father look his four-year-old son in the eye and tell him that he cannot be both a practicing vegetarian and a hot dog lover? Why should a working mom, who is deeply committed to the principles of vegetarianism, feel guilty simply for snacking on an occasional beef jerky? How can any movement or organization systematically exclude those who, for medical reasons, must eat a diet rich in poultry and beef?
For a long time these questions haunted me until one day I stumbled upon the answer - Vegetarians for a Free Choice. Tossing off the shackles of the traditional vegetarian movement, Vegetarians for a Free Choice seeks to bring "choice" back to eating.
For too long, an extremist group of anti-meat ideologues has attempted to dictate what defines vegetarianism. These extremists and their overly legalistic view of vegetarianism have discouraged many of us from joining a movement we might otherwise find appealing. In fact, recent polls indicate that over 72% of those who currently consider themselves non-vegetarians would consider becoming vegetarians if they were simply permitted to retain the right to eat meat.
Well, those of us who would like to become a vegetarian while still having an occasional Big Mac now have an option - Vegetarians for a Free Choice. VFC is a nonjudgmental, nondiscriminatory vegetable eating organization open to meat eaters and non-meat eaters alike. VFC respects your personal "right to choose" when it comes to making meat eating decisions. VFC believes it is your right to define what vegetarianism means to you.
As expected, the zealots in the anti-meat-eating wing of the vegetarian movement have already risen up to condemn VFC. "This cafeteria style vegetarianism is completely bogus," they claim. "You cannot pick and choose your own rules for being a vegetarian." Aside from being completely undemocratic, these critics ignore numerous inconsistencies already existing in the movement.
Some of the so-called leaders eat fish, while others do not. Some of the so-called leaders eat animal products like milk and cheese, while others do not. Who, then, are these hypocrites to tell me I can no longer continue to eat my cheese steaks while still calling myself a vegetarian? No longer should we allow these unelected vegetarian leaders to impose upon us their outmoded notions of vegetarianism.
Vegetarianism should be open to all Americans regardless of their eating habits or preferences. Discrimination based upon what one eats is just as pernicious as racism, sexism or homophobia. It is time to set aside our own personal biases when it comes to eating and establish a vegetarian movement we can all be proud of. Now is the time for a more inclusive and tolerant vegetarianism.
Thanks to VFC, Americans no longer have to choose between their Vegetarianism and their fried chicken. They can have both. I encourage all of you to sponsor a Vegetarians for Choice Pig Roast in your local community. If interested, you can even e-mail me for my wife's famous Spotted Owl Casserole recipe."

New Miracles for Mary Mackillop

Cathnews.com reported that the vice postulator for Blessed Mary MacKillop's (BMM) cause for cannonisation has received a great number of people coming forward claiming to have been helped through the intercession of BMM in recent weeks. Apparently many more people were encouraged to come forward after the media reported that the Delezio family believed to have prayed to BMM. The Delezio family had a daughter, Sophie, who had been hit by a car in recent months. There was great media coverage over Sophie's plight as she was badly burnt by fire a couple of years earlier. Sophie Delezio is a young girl aged about 7 years old, so one can only hope and pray that she has had her fair share of suffering for her life.
The father is a very loving man and the family are apparently extremely strong in their time of suffering. Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt, has called for Mr Delezio to be named the father of the year.

News article here

Interesting to note the Sister who is the vice postulator for Blessed Mary MacKillop's cause for cannonisation isn't wearing her habit in the above article. Hmmm, maybe they caught her in the morning before she had a chance to put it on or better yet, maybe habits are old, out-of-date, 'pre-vatican II'.

Another staff member for CA!

Following last week's developments with regards to a new staff member, Catholic Australia has landed another big win in the past days. We have been able to secure another staff member of the team and look forward to his posts over the coming weeks.
Once again contractual and legal issues prevent us from naming the staff member as yet! Another 'member' of the Catholic intelligentsia and also well known in Melbourne Catholic circles. He enters the ring with a Bachelor of Law (with Honours) and will be the residential expert in legal issues and Canon Law matters. He also has a Bachelor of Commerce with a Major in Management and will be most insightful in matters relating to our business community.

Welcome to the team, another yet un-named new staffer!

PS. I can assure you that one day we will stop talking about the staff and get on with substantial posts!