Gee, that’ll make a really great piece for satire, I thought last night. Then, after hearing this morning’s news, I thought, nah, that one’s much better. After a day’s work, and checking the news at times throughout the day, I am forced to admit that in these times of Donald and Malcolm and Barnaby and Kim and… Anyway, you get the picture… After all that, I have to confess that I really need to make notes. I used to have the memory of an elephant. I’m not sure which elephant, but whichever one it is, he’s probably pretty pissed that I’ve taken it.
Anyway, I’m having a hard time remembering any of it.
I’m sure that there’s some gem I forgot. You know, something like defending Barnaby for saying he’d never been to England – even though he’d been there just a few weeks earlier – by pointing that he was told he was going to the United Kingdom, so how was he to know where he was. Of course that was when Barnaby was getting stuck into those Green senators for not knowing that they were dual citizens. But I forgot to write that because I didn’t make notes… Just like Barnaby forgot that he went to England.
Of course, Barnaby has more important things that he’s forgotten, so because the matter is before the High Court, I’ll refrain from laughing at the man until the High Court brings down a verdict allowing him to be the subject of ridicule for the term of his natural life.
Thankfully everything in the news cycle keeps getting repeated, so my memory is sometimes jogged. Which is good, because apparently jogging is exercise and I probably need exercise so that I don’t merely have the memory of an elephant but the physique as well.
No, I was going to share with you the strange position of the Catholic Church…
In arguing against marriage equality, one of the arguments they’ve put forward is that children deserve a mother and father, so it’s against nature for people of the same sex to marry. No, their position is crystal clear: People of the same sex shouldn’t marry. They should be like priests and remain unmarried. Besides, if we allow same sex marriage, it might lead to polygamy. Which is also a strange argument, considering all nuns are “brides of Christ”.
Now, let me be quite clear here. I’m not anti-Catholic. Just like I’m not anti-Muslim. Or anti-semitic. Or anti-Nazi. Like Trump, I think there has been some violence on all sides and I want to condemn violence, whether it comes from protesters I like or protesters who deserve to be run over.
But I wonder why some Catholic leaders feel more compelled to tell us to think of the children when it comes to marriage equality, when all they could say when it came to the cases of child abuse that they could have helped prevent, all they could say was think of England.
Or something like that.
Anyway, the Royal Commission – which is Royal, so it has something to do with our head of state, so it shouldn’t be ignored – today recommended that it should be made illegal for priests not to reveal cases of child abuse which they discover through confession.
I must say – in all seriousness – that I’m with Archbishop Dennis Hart on this one. He said that confession was a spiritual matter and, as a matter of conscience, priests shouldn’t comply with this.
Of course, Dennis was attacked for his position by various Coalition members:
Turnbull told us that Hart “believes that you only have to have to obey the law” or that the Church only has to obey the law “if they agree with it!”
Michaelia Cash thought that it was “an extraordinary admission” to believe that one “is above the law”.
Peter Dutton called him a “lunatic”!
Or wait, these comments weren’t directed at the Hart, they were directed at Sally McManus when she suggested that unions should break unjust laws.
Sorry, I must have mucked up my googling. Of course, Sally was suggesting that unions should stand up when laws impinged on the freedom to fight injustice which is unreasonable, whereas Dennis was telling us that, of course, the Church should be able to grant absolution to someone who’d merely engaged in a bit of child abuse without the fear that the law would come between them and their God.
Of course the Liberals wouldn’t find that as worthy of condemnation as a union leader suggesting that sometimes people have rights that the law can’t take away.
Or rights that we shouldn’t need a plebiscite to establishment them as a right…
I gave religion away a long time ago thankfully, but here’s a message for the Catholic Church re confession. I Timothy 2:5.
Aortic – don’t have a bible, so what does Timothy2:5 say?
Re marriage and the claimed imperative for each child to have both a mother and father. So what happens to the kids after a divorce? Perhaps they should be sent to a Church run institution?
FYI Timothy 1 2:5
“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
Thanks Rossleigh, could not have said it better myself.
I can’t even think of a comment, you have covered it all as usual.
It’s become a farce – daily.
Yep, it just gets sillier and sillier. From Orwellian to the Kafka-esque, the surreal-ality of this ruling rabble beggars belief.
http://shanewombat.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/how-low-can-they-go.html
you have to be joking about timothy if a wafer is the body and a glass of plonk is the blood surely a priest can be the ears but not the mouth.
Time to ask why???
I think every religious asset should be purchased by the State for use by any public or religious organisations on a rotational basis.
They should be taxed as any business should be taxed and the State should make them comply with corporation law, their executives to comply with governance laws and be tequired to pay all employees as all other employees, lastly they must be incorperated within Australia if they wish to operate in Australia.
In short treated as a business, full stop!
S G B
The Bible also says that marriage is something that must happen between a rapist and his victim and that if the woman was a virgin, the rapist must pay her father 50 sheckels as compensation.
It also expressly forbids divorce so there must be a lot of false marriages out there.
In fact it says a lot of nasty things that are deliberately ignored except for the ones conveniently cherry-picked as required.
If they consider marriage as some sort of religious “institution”, well so were witch burning and slavery for centuries but they were changed and eventually abandoned as a result of social progess.
Until Churches start to pay tax and thus make a physical contribution to the society that supports them they should have no say in how that society decides to operate.
Also, the overwhelming majority of gay people are typically the sons or daughters of heterosexual couples.
I would vote on the poll, but it’s probably against the APS Code of Conduct for me to.
Under normal circumstances, it takes a while to recognise hypocrisy when it shows itself. Given that we are in a ‘transition’ stage of government, from inept/incompetent to outright farcical, it has become increasingly difficult to catalogue the hypocrisies. How does one apply logic and reason to the illogical and unreasonable?
Every so often, there is a ‘Ye Gods’ declaration from politicians on the rampant threat of ‘Sharia Law’ to the very fabric of Australian society. Their concern is that a ‘church’ law will take precedence over ‘state’ law. You know, the usual offenders, children will be wed off, men will take multiple wives, thieves will have hands amputated (can you imagine the number of amputee’s there would be in Parliament House?), and so on. No matter how many times it is stated by the Islamic Council’s in Australia that Muslims accept that ‘state’ law takes precedence over ‘church’ law, the hysterical politicians will ramp it up.
Here we have the head of the Catholic Church stating that they will ignore the law of the land. Not because it is bad, or unjust. But because it offends the sensibilities of a communion between a believer and their god. Can you imagine if the Grand Mufti of Australia issued such a statement?
As to the following;
“But I wonder why some Catholic leaders feel more compelled to tell us to think of the children when it comes to marriage equality, when all they could say when it came to the cases of child abuse that they could have helped prevent, all they could say was think of England.”
Of my friends that are involved in same sex relationships, I honestly can’t think of any that weren’t brought up in heterosexual households. Of the few that have children, none of the children have (as yet) displayed any predisposition to homosexuality.
As to reporting child abuse, where does the church stand on those children on Nauru, where there are literally hundreds of reports as to their abuse on both physical and mental levels? Are they reportable, as god is not in the equation?
Heaven forbid.
As for that lunatic, dutton, does anyone know what his religion is? He is repeatedly referred to as a Christian of rather extreme views, a religious extremist if you like.
He couldn’t be Catholic. You know, divorced once, child out of wedlock. That sort of thing.
Notwithstanding that, he likes the principle of the confessional. He tried to apply it to the staff in his gulags. You know, “Anything you do in here can’t be reported.” Unsurprisingly, he has recanted this position. Some tried taking him to court over it. In true dutton fashion, he acquiesced on the court steps. Heaven forbid he should ever have to explain his thought processes or his actions.
Whether he is regarded as “Il Duce” or “Ill Douche Bag” is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
“…the Church should be able to grant absolution to someone who’d merely engaged in a bit of child abuse without the fear that the law would come between them and their God.”
Not sure if dutton has ever gone to confession. Undoubtedly, deaths in his custody, abuse of children in his custody, torture of the bodies, minds and souls of those in his custody, rampant disregard for truth, and all of his other transgressions would have been absolved with a few Hail Mary’s, Our Father’s, etc.
If the person hearing the confession is under no obligation to report such indiscretions, can we subpoena God? Surely the subpoena can be served on God’s servants. They are, after all, in regular communion with Him. None, as yet, have suggested it’s a female voice on the other end. In any event, the same theory applies if their God is Her.
Thank you Mr Brisbane and commenters. May your God’s go with you. Take care
Yes, just reflecting this morning on Erica Betz’s effort on QA last night. Stomach turning.
Having a smile at the pic at top, I saw it on FB and shared only about twenty minutes ago.
Incidentally, why the issue is about more than just sentimentality.
Just heard that the Liberals are accusing Shorten and co of “conspiring” with a foreign power (New Zealand) to bring down the Australian Government…
I trust Peter Dutton will act swiftly, using his new super-ministry to haul them all in for questioning.
And to think I was suggesting that it was somehow a lack of process in the National Party that was responsible for Barnaby’s current problem, but no! It is – of course – Labor’s fault!
Barnaby is a New Zealander. Why, they have even established links to his genome.
http://www.tomatoesnz.co.nz/
Baa-baa-barnaby.