Good and bad news - Bishop Robinson

Last weeks Catholic Weekly (the Catholic newspaper in New South Wales) ran a large advertisement for an upcoming 'forum' with Bishop Robinson.  The show is being put on by 'Catalyst for Renewal' and the 'Aquinas Academy'.

For those who may not know,  Bishop Robinson is a retired auxiliary bishop of the Sydney Archdiocese and had become a controversial figure for his liberal position on sexual morality. In fact, he now goes on speaking tours which attack the church's position on such matters, all under the guise of him trying to start a 'conversation' or something similar.

Catalyst for Renewal and the Aquinas Academy are likewise liberal organisations and in this respect they also have a fair bit in common with the Broken  Bay Institute (an earlier post). 

As a brief aside, it is interesting to note one striking similarity between these institutions: their logos.  In each case, theorganisation hasa logo that claims to be Christian, including having deep theological significance in their imagery but to any man on the street would seem entirelynon-Christian. Have a look:

Anyhow, and getting back to the story, for the past few years Bishop Robinson and the Catalys for Renewal have been putting on events in Sydney. These are typically given provocative names like 'Power and sex in the church'. To its credit, the Sydney Archdiocese has nothing to do with these - they cannot even be held on Church property (which calls into question why the Catholic Weekly ran the ad). Instead, they are currently held at a Salvation Army hall, which is seen, by attendees, as a badge of honour. 

Now, how can this be good news (as the headline has promised)?  It is this - if you look at the You Tube videos of one of these events, you will see much of the usual - priests without collars, the audience laughing at any joke at the expense of the Pope etc.  But you will also see a very greying and aging audience - much older than I would have imagined.

There are not the numbers of youth marching proudly down the street at Sydney's recent Corpus Christi parade.  Instead, and this is one matter that I am looking to explore generally on this blog - this is an older generation hanging onto (or so it seems to me) an outpost of Kumbaya-ism.

So while this mob may get a bit of press in the more liberal parts of the Catholic world (Eureka Street etc), and the odd ad in the Catholic Weekly (perhaps through bad judgment) this type of event may be fading out. 

Surrogacy battle continues

In an earlier post, suggested amendments to Queensland surrogacy laws were noted. These form part of a broader roll back of same sex laws by Queensland's new government - the Liberal National Party with a huge, huge majority. As part of the roll back, same sex couples will not now be able to have state-sanctioned civil unions, but can instead 'register' their relationship (which, so I take it, will provide various civil rights).

On Friday, the Queensland government formally announced that it would amend surrogacy laws to prohibit surrogacy being available to same sex couples.   Below comment is made on selected media coverage of the surrogacy announcement, but prior to that, one concern about the proposed change is worth considering. 

The concern is this - the proposed amendments to surrogacy laws do not remove the availability of surrogacy all together, but only to same sex couples.  While I regard the proposed change to be in the best interests of the child (as per the earlier post), those interests would be far better served by a total ban on the practice. This is not just because surrogacy is a very troubling notion in itself, but (and as explained below) because the proposed changes risk further legitimising the practice of surrogacy amongst heterosexual couples. To illustrate, contrast this situation with 'gay marriage'. 


In gay marriage debates, arguments against same sex marriage often focus upon marriage as being the natural 'institution' between heterosexual couples within which families are created (all things being equal) and then raised. Marriage has a natural connection to heterosexuality that it does not have with same sex couples - same sex marriage, on this analysis, is impossible. 

By contrast, surrogacy is not natural in the first place. It needs legitimisation from the outset. The very idea of a mother becoming pregnant with the sole pre-pregnancy intention of giving a child away does not strike as natural. 

The changes to surrogacy laws, if considered as being in the same sphere of debate as gay marriage (ie a gay rights issue), mean that the Queensland government is effectively saying that surrogacy is legitimate when used by heterosexual couples (in the same way that marriage is) but not by same sex couples.  In the circumstances, the appropriate thing to do would be to ban surrogacy.  We can only wish.

Turning back to the media coverage of the issue, consider the following:

The ABC's current affairs radio story got into the act by using language such as the government 'delivering another blow' and dropping 'bombshells' and 'vowing' to 'write out' gay rights. No surprises here, but it does provide the chance to reflect upon the way that media coverage can seep into your world view by telling you what to believe. You listen to this story and it seems as though a great injustice has been occasioned. No real effort is made to explain why the laws are being changed, and what the perceived benefits of the change are.

Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald has a story about "kowtowing to right wingers" .

One of the more balanced articles was in the Brisbane Times, which ran a headline that suggested that there may be some sort of rationale to all of this - "Childlessness a 'consequence of homosexuality'".

The fight goes on.

And a better Christian

If you are in the mood for a simply wonderful short story about virtue and a dog (as people often are), have a look at Henry Lawson's 'That there dog of mine'. 

What makes this story so perfect is that the dog is not particularly anthropomorphised. The dog is allowed to be its natural dog-self, and it is the humans who are encouraged to reflect upon the defects in their own lives by observing and anthropomorphising aspects of the dog's nature which, if learned as human virtue, would make the humans all the better.   Another dog story that does this exceptionally well is the timeless Lassie Come Home by Eric Knight (compare it with Red Dog by Louis de Bernières, in which the author gets into the dog's mind, which only serves to make it too human.)

Henry Lawson's story concerns a swagman, Macquarie, who has suffered broken ribs after a fight, and his dog a broken leg.  A local hospital is willing to help the man, but will not see to mending his dog.  That being so, the swagman refuses assistance - if his dog is not good enough for the hospital, then neither is he. The animal has spent his whole life in thankless service to the (often undeserving) swagman, who realises that he cannot now abandon his hound.   In a telling passage:

 “That there dog,” said Macquarie to the hospital staff in general, “is a better dog than I’m a man – or you too, it seems – and a better Christian. He’s been a better mate to me than I ever was to any man – or any man to me. He’s watched over me; kep’ me from getting robbed many a time; fought for me; saved my life and took drunken kicks and curses for thanks – and forgave me. He’s been a true, straight, honest, and faithful mate to me – and I ain’t going to desert him now. I ain’t going to kick him out in the road with a broken leg"

Read the story for yourself to discover the ending.

There seems to be something about the nature of these animals, provided to us generously by God, that serves to be used not so much to praise the dog for its seeming virtue (after all, it is its nature), but to shine a light on our own lack of virtue, in the way that great literature or art can do. 

In its own way the dog is art, and going back to my earlier post, this is what makes me so delighted that Christ himself saw fit to use the dog's nature as an analogy in the gospel, and that several saints have had trusty canine compainons on their journeys. 

This may be a topic for a stand alone post, but the moral usefulness of dogs even goes a step further.  They can teach, and especially children, that life on earth is not forever and that relationships with loves ones will ultimately end in death.  The death of a dog has much to teach.

Anyhow, cheers for dogs.

Catholic education - better from home?

For homeschoolers, what follows should give affirmation in their deciding to embrace the education of their own children.  It is also a reason for homeschoolers to jump in and ask 'far away schoolers' "so what on earth made you decide not to home school your kids?" before (as so often happens) the onus is reversed by the homeschooler being asked "why did you chose to home school?"

This week, a Catholic organisation called the 'Broken Bay Institute' released a notification of an upcoming publication, said to be written for Australian Catholic educators, about the importance of keeping 'Catholic' in Catholic schools.  The publication is by Jim and Therese D'Orsa, who often write about Catholic education, and is titled 'Catholic Curriculum - A Mission to the Heat of Young People'.  

The press release for the book says that it aims to create an educational environment giving students a sense of  being Catholic so that they "gain the capacity to bring perspectives of faith and culture together in dealing with human experience" as opposed to students feeling like "victims of [cultural] change".

So what's the problem?  This all sounds pretty good. Well, having been exposed to post-modern theories of sociology at Sydney University, I'm always nervous when I see phrases like "perspectives of faith and culture" (or words like 'our faith journey', 'the Christian story', used elsewhere).  Such expressions ring of making your belief devoid of objective meaning, and instead only understandable as one way of seeing the world amongst others, all of which are equal. This is not language easily leading to a conclusion that the publication will foster in a desire to keep 'Catholic' in Catholic schools.    

In fact, there should be little surprise in this respect. It is published by the Broken Bay Institute. Consider the BBI's logo. Does this look like the sort of place that will succeed in keeping Catholic schools Catholic?

The logo, so the website informs, is not (as you may think) a representation of the planetary rings of Saturn.  It is said to be a Catholic symbol.  'What', you ask, 'if this is a Catholic symbol then wouldn't anything be?'  I suspect that that is all part of the 'faith journey' 'perspectives of faith' busness.  You see, the rings it turns out are ripples of water, and this obviously (apparently) represents baptism.  And the fact that there are three ripples - this supposedly reminds us of the call to holiness, mission and ministry. (In truth, this is, in fact, kymbaya-ism.)

Please do not miss the point.  I have no reason to believe that the BBI's publication will have any affect on Catholic education in Australia.  However, just think for a minute that this is the sort of gun that is pulled out when the idea of making Catholic schools Catholic comes up. If you homeschool, be grateful.  If you send your kids to a proper Catholic school, be grateful.

Report into marriage

Last Monday, the House of Representative's standing committee on social policy and legal affairs issued its advisory report into the Green's proposes Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 (don't you just love how even the titles given to legislation tells you how you are meant to think).

The Report's forward is worth reading, if only to gain an understanding of how assumption-ridden the 'debate' on same sex marriage has become, even at a parliamentary level.  

The parliamentary committee's chair is Graham Perrett MP. Graham is one of those mischievous types who proudly announces to all and sundry that he is Catholic, but also that he is pro gay marriage.  The news media laps this up like a dachshund yogurt.

Sloganism

As though the 'I'm Catholic' act was not enough for Mr Perrett, he (or perhaps some clever PR person) has also come up with a slogan which has gained extensive media coverage.  The foward says, with a sense of smugness: 

“It is important to remember that God did not write the Marriage Act”

I take it that the supposed effect of this slogan is for the reader to think "Yeah, you know what, that's exactly what is wrong with those Christian people - they don't get that the Marriage Act was not written by God". 

Mr Perrett must be given credit for being savvy enough to detect that so long as you come up with a good slogan, its superficial attractiveness, but substantive hollowness, will simply be ignored.  

Definition of marriage

The report does not appear to contain any proper debate about what marriage is.  Instead, it proceeds on the basis that marriage is the same as love, albeit love expresses through a public ceremony.  In this respect, the forward to the report states:  

“We also know what marriage signifies. Marriage is about the love and commitment that two people have for each other. The sexual orientation of the parties to the marriage is not the issue; it is what they pledge to each other in the marriage itself”

I find this assumption, that marriage is no more than love, both socially concerning and in as being a false premises adopted to enable a conclusion that marriage should be available to any people who express love.

While love is very important (or perhaps very useful) in a marriage, the reduction of marriage to no more than love is problematic for the institution's stability. What if love ends? What if love for another arises? 

What about the children?

The report is quite silent on the effect of same sex marriage on children. In parts, and ostrich like, it explains that questions like same sex adoption etc are matters for Australian States, not the Commonwealth. 

The avoidance of a mature discussion of effects on children is made all the easier by reducing the definition of marriage to nothing more than publicly expressed, and state-sanctioned, love. This avoids a discussion of the function of marriage as a means to raise a stable society through raising children in the best possible environment. 

I do not see how the discussion of children cannot be perhaps the primary focus when the legislated change to marriage laws will mean, for same sex couples with children, that those children, and seemingly necessarily, will not be being raised by their birth parents.  It baffles me to understand how this can be essentially ignored.

As I have said elsewhere on this blog, if you are minded to gain an appreciation of how important a link to biological parents is, have a look at current adoption laws and policies. In the sphere of adoption, nothing seems more important than for adoptive parents to appreciate that it is an unfortunate circumstance that has delivered them their adopted child, and that the connection between that child and its birth parents must be maintained as far as is possible at all cost.  It seems that this mandate falls away when discussion turns to gay people. It is a clash of ideology: children's interests and rights carry the day in the world of adoption, but the gay couple's rights carry the day in the gay rights universe. Crazy.

Social engineering

One final point to note is the committee's express hope that the changes to the law will achieve, all things being equal, a degree of social engineering.  The report says:

"It is now time to enact this legislation and raise future generations of children who won't believe that once upon a time same-sex couples in Australia could not marry."

It is concerning to think that the Parliament of Australia is now proposing to introduce laws to make your children think differently for the way you may want them to think.  I never asked Mr Perrett and his mates to raise my children. 

Shining marriage pastoral letter

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, and his auxiliary bishops, issued a pastoral letter on marriage yesterday. At least to me, the letter concisely ventilated the central issues in the 'same-sex marriage' debate, with a focus on children and the role of chastity. I also found it comforting and uplifting to have a pastoral letter read out, as opposed to being made available for collection on the way out of Mass.  In essence the letter said 'we are Catholics and these are the reasons (which were then summarised) why we Catholics oppose the idea that there can be such a thing as same sex marriage'.

Given that anything 'gay' attracts massive levels of media attention, seemingly on demand, the usual opposition was rolled out, and probably in the belief that balanced coverage was being provided. 

As is to be expected, the ABC led the charge.  Its website ran several stories referring to the letter and similar letters read to other Christian churches.  For a rather atheistic institution, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they honestly believed that the letter had been drafted by the devil himself. 

Today's lead ran with the headline: "Pastor slams anti-gay marriage campaign", and rather ironically given the headline, accused the Church of scaremongering.   The 'pastor' referred to was a Baptist minister from Sydney who is a common go-to man when a pro gay marriage line is needed from a Christian, and he faithfully delivered.  He was concerned that Catholics could not think for themselves.

Of course, there can rarely be a gay 'marriage' story without a contribution from the Greens, who in the same ABC story took the view that it was all scaremongering because (now get this) the proposed laws would not force Catholics to perform same-sex 'marriages'. (I'm not sure whether the Greens or the ABC actually read the letter they were commenting upon.)

Similarly themed stories were run in the Sydney Morning Herald who wheeled out Penny Wong with a 'gay marriage is inevitable' line. News Limited, and it must be said somewhat originally, went to the trouble of finding a comment from the pop singer from Savage Garden, who it turned out was quite upset by it all. 

The only thing missing in the thousands and thousands of words devoted to the event was coverage of what the letter actually said, why Catholics and other Christians had concerns, what those concerns were, and how the 'gay groups' (and, I suppose, the Baptist minister) responded to these positions. For instance, I could not find a link to the letter on any news piece. 

Now, it is not uncommon to refer to all of this as a debate, but there does not seem to be much debating going on.

New rights - off Target

I was in Target yesterday morning buying socks. I looked up at the checkout
to discover, or rather Target revealed its discovery to me, a brand new
right, apparently possessed by all Australians. It said (and I kid you not):

"Everyone in Australia

has the right to look good

and feel good about the

way they dress and live.

At Target, we aim to make this achievable

with stylish, fashionable clothing and

homewares accessible to everyone."

God bless their souls. 

How pleasing to have a new right to toss into the sack besides all those other newly discovered ones. Standing at that checkout I felt empowered. I felt like nodding, pumping my fist, like a rocker to a Bruce Springsteen anthem.

How far beyond Targets marketing office will this new right go? Will Clover
Moore get on board? Will Channel 7's Sunrise and Marie Claire (see earlier post)?  Does it apply at Christmas Island? Will it change the lives of the homeless? Can they now stroll into Target to exercise their right as Australians? Would Target be precluded from prosecuting these thieves on the basis of that they were only exercising a right Target itself promotes as being inalienable to all Australians?

If only all those nonesense rights went no further than the wall behind Target's checkout.

Homeschooling (on the) ABC

The ABC is Australia's public broadcaster.

As near as I can tell from my own ABC radio listening, and sites like the wonderful Get Religion, the ABC shares characteristics with other public broadcasters.  It is accused of being left leaning, but denies this religiously. It seems overly quick - indeed almost hungry - to adopt an anti-Church line, like rolling out a host of negative church stories and no positive ones. And when it does decide to run a 'positive' church story, its generosity is given to liberal stories where the theme is anti-orthodox.  The recent US nun fiasco being the latest example - poor, helpless 'nuns' being beat up on by dreaded Rome etc.

Sometimes, however, there are stories that don't quite fit the mold, at least when they first break onto the scene, when media tropes are yet to be established.  One of these, at least in Australia, is homeschooling.

In January 2012, the ABC ran a news story reporting that the numbers of homeschooled children in Australia is under reported.  The story bought its media currency by running an 'illegal homeschooling' line, and focused on a family who had not registered their daughter, and were brought before a court for this terrible crime.  Yet, the story was surprisingly positive, or at least balanced. It also received an in depth current affairs run on a highbrow radio program 'Background Briefing'.

In a way, I can see the balance in the story arising from what I imagine to be the inner conflict in an ABC's editor's brain, which I take to be like a Daleks:

Left side of ABC editor's brain:  'Homeschooling is a liberal activity. I must obey the ABC. I must run a positive editorial line.'

Right side of ABC editor's brain: 'Homeschoolers are quite likely to be Catholics of an orthodox persuasion. I must obey the ABC. I must run a negative editorial line against such people.'

Combined brain: 'Where there is a liberal/orthodox conflict, I must run a liberal editorial line.  But in this story the liberal line will be the orthodox line.  That does not compute. I am a confused Dalek. This is not in the ABC manual. I will need to adopt a novel approach of being balanced.'

To be fair, I do not know how the ABC's editor's work - but I would not be surprised.

Anyhow, just yesterday there was another story on the ABC's Radio National Life Matters program.  It also had balance - have a listen. There was also a similar show on 'Counterpoint'. 

Balance is, of course, not perfect.  The shows have themes including socialisation and an in-studio expert singing the praises of education as a profession which is to be handled by professionals.  But to me these are all okay - after all they are questions often asked by our own acquaintances when they hear of homeschoolng. It is good to have these put out into the public and discussed. (I do think that these programs would benefit from a more fundamental question - what is the best way to educate someone, rather than treat public schools as a default.)

At the moment these are good days for Homeshooling in the eyes of the ABC.

Catholic hounds, catholic cats

Catholic dachshund stories are thin at the moment, so this will need to do. 

The ‘cats v dogs’ arguments go on.  Not bothered by the ‘I’m just so independent’ card commonly played by the cats and their admirers, I side with the heroic loyalty of the hounds.  

It is also comforting to note that even though dogs return to the earth upon death, unable to enjoy eternity, so powerful and ageless is their example of faithfulness and loyalty that this trait finds itself expressed in the Church - as an example for us - through religious art, the lives of certain saints and in the gospel itself.  Three of my  favourite instances (sadly, none – at least expressly - involving a dachshund) are given below. 

Matthew 15:27 -  the Canaanite woman implores the Lord for mercy for her possessed daughter. Jesus questions her, asking if it is fair to take food from children (the Israelites) only to toss it to something lowly - a dog (the gentile). The lady, seizing on the example of the faithful yet lowly dog, famously answers (indeed addresses God directly with the words) that even lowly dogs are allowed to eat the scraps which fall from their master’s table. This will be enough for her.

Next, St John Bosco’s heaven-sent protector – the dog Grigio.  What a moment when  good Grigio must prevent his master from leaving his house one night as men lay in ambush for the saint. The dog having to snarl and snap. In a sense, this dog’s real master was from above, but nonetheless I sometimes think of the psychological confusion that the animal must have been under having to disobey his earthly mastery in order to serve his heavenly one – something Grigio was not fully able to communicate. True loyalty.

Finally, the artistic representations of St Dominic accompanied by a dog holding a flaming torch. The connection traces back to a story of the saint’s mother while pregnant having a vision of a dog with a flaming torch in its mouth, lighting up the world.  St Dominic’s name, and the Dominican order, are apparently susceptible to a play on words in Latin to mean ‘dog of the Lord’. There is an image of St Dominic with his dog in a stained glass window in St Patrick’s, Church Hill, Sydney. It always gave me some comfort to look up and see a dog, a creature whose faithful nature is well known, used in the church.    

Surrogacy in the news again

The world children live in is ruled by adults, and ruled tightly. In some ways, a fog of Dickensian darkness hangs over the rights of children, not often in the sense (in Australia at least) of their day to day living, but instead pre-birth.

A current example, that is again becoming newsworthy is surrogacy, particularly same-sex surrogacy.

If you did not know what surrogacy was, following an explanation, you’d most likely think the idea crazy.  A mother gives birth to a child (either her own child, in a genetic sense, or a child implanted into her womb with no genetic link), and then cedes the motherhood of that child to another person, with whom she had a pre-pregnancy arrangement.  Usually, the person to whom the child is given either could not have a child herself (due to infertility and a bodily inability to undergo IVF), or the person, as a matter of natural impossibility, could not ever have had a child, such as where the child is given to a man (or same-sex male couple). 

Until recently, surrogacy was illegal in Australian states due to many post birth problems, not to do with the children, but the birth mother not wanting to relinquish the child (see here for a good article on some issues).  This has been dealt with by legislation allowing the mother (who I feel guilty for not calling the ‘birth mother’) to keep the child if she so desires, and regardless of any pre-pregnancy arrangement (see here for a summary of the Queensland laws).

And, surrogacy is becoming newsworthy again.  As posted earlier, NSW just had its first case of same-sex male surrogacy. A mother gave her child to two gay men to raise as their child.  They became the ‘parents’ on its birth certificate. In making such an order, the legislation requires the court to have regard to the best interests of the child, and this arrangement was found to be in the best interests of the child (this is part of the Dickensian pall).

In Queensland, there is now news of moves to change the Queensland Surrogacy Act to prevent same sex couples from being able to obtain a child through surrogacy. No doubt this will cause a media storm.

One thing that strikes me about surrogacy news stories is that the focus is upon either the couple/person who is to receive the child following the birth (who cannot be named) or someone in a similar situation considering surrogacy, and who sees the laws as salvation.   I am yet to see a story about the issues that a child may face when it has to peel back the layers of social engineering to determine how it made its passage into the world.  This is certainly different to the focus on adopted children, where the link to their birth parents is paramount in giving them a sense of identity in the world (if you are interested, seek out the DoCS NSW or CatholicCare literature on this issue and you will begin to appreciate what child focused means).

We will have to see how it all plays out.

Walk for Christ

Thousands of Catholics walked through the centre of Sydney in the driving rain yesterday in a Eucharistic procession for the feast of Corpus Christi.  Maybe 4 times as many as were at the Marie Claire gay marriage media stunt (see earlier post).  No secular news coverage yet.  No news issue, I suppose. We'll have to ask the editors of Marie Claire how they did it.

All hail Peter Singer?

Each year at this time, Australians are bestowed with 'Queen's Birthday awards', leading to a morning of public broadcaster radio coverage of interviews with understandably humbled recipients.

To get a news story out of such an event, focus tends to be on a famous scientist or doctor, whose work has led to discovering a technique in treating some form of terrible suffering. This year that person is medical researcher Ian Frazer. 

A second angle for a story is to pick up on a controversial (if only slightly) recipient.  This year, that person seems to be Peter Singer.

You may have heard of Peter Singer. He's famous for animal liberation and (but only secondly) encouraging the killing of humans in circumstances currently just beyond the norm - like killing intellectually or physically disabled children at any time in the first few years after birth (in particular circumstances).  (If you are interested in a punchy critique of Singer's views in this respect, try and find a copy of James Franklin's book on the history of philosophy in Australia - Corrupting the Youth, which is well worth a read anyway).

Mr Singer's views have always tended to secure an disproportional amount of media coverage by the Australian and British public broadcasters.  This is not, as the uneducated may imagine, in order to critique his position, but to effectively sing his praises, albeit with a bit of weak counterposed opposition lacking his formidable rigour. (This last observation links back to a previous post concerning the potential harm that can flow from having opposition on these issues pushed through a purely Christian point of view, and not spiced with significant rigour .)

In any event, in today's interviews with Mr Singer, talk quickly progressed to his views of God. Singer is also wheeled out as a 'new aethist', commonly at those other events so lovingly covered by public broadcasters - conferences of atheists with their Parthenon of stars - Dawkins et al.  The interviewer asked Singer a question along the lines of 'we know you have strong views of rationalism over belief in God, so you must be very disappointed to learn that the amount of followers of religion is continuing to grow.'  'Yes', said Singer (and I'm paraphrasing), 'I can only try an promote the place of rational thought' - and so it went on.

I have three comments about this. First, it seems to be assumed, in the question asked and answer given, that if you are religious, you are not rational.  This is a great convenience for an interviewer, since (amongst other things) it prevents any potential embarrassment between interviewer and intervieweee.

Second, it is sad that the subject matter of  the question (that religion is growing) is treated as little more than a position to hold in a debate, or as being akin to a political view that can change between elections. The tone has no room to consider that a religious position reflects a way of life for a person.  Marriage is now treated the same way - as though it is something to be supported or not, rather than as a way of being.

Thirdly, and this brings me to Burwood library. No doubt you have never heard of Burwood library - a suburban local public library in Sydney, but you may be able to identify with the following, drawn to my attention by my wife (and for a more substantial future post).  If you went and had a look at the books in the religious section (say, out of a sociological interest), you would discover that there are very few - I'd say less than 5% - which would give you any insight as to how to live as a Catholic (my creed). There are plenty that tell you how to live as an atheist, and why that is a superior state of being.  There are many others about lapsed believers who take a swing at their former profession, there are may 'comparative religion' books and finally, there are plenty of Kumbaya books (see up and to the right for a definition). In short, unlike the art, cooking, history and chemistry sections, there are not many books about how to be a Catholic in a religion section.

I suppose the point can be viewed as to how has religion's role in large parts of the 'public square' has been reduced to cannon fodder for attackers (a la Singer and his mates), or something of a sociological phenomenon (al la Burwood library), rather than something that most of us humans do?  All for another day.

Surrogacy laws and media coverage

I have just come across a report of a recent NSW Supreme Court decision concerning the operation of the Surrogacy Act to two men. The two men have become the parents of a child by application of the Act.

Before commenting on the decision, and the issues generally thrown up (which are being saved for another post), there are some things to note in respect of the news coverage.  Firstly, there was not much at all, which is a bit funny given that this seems to be the first application of the Act to two men.  Secondly, the news was focused through a Christian lens. The stories all quoted from a statement by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) which was reported to have "condemned" the decision, or more properly the practical operation of the Act.

I suppose that a counterpoint between 'gay' and 'Christian' makes for an easy story, but to me it can too easily operate as a way of avoiding what should be treated as a serious social issue, and not an ideological battle. I would hope that the ACL people do not hold onto their views simply because they are Christian, but also because their view is the most reasonable position to take on an issue, and ought to be adopted regardless of creed.  This is a theme I would like to consider more fully (again in future posts). It throws up issues like lazy journalism. It also gives occasion to wonder about the effectiveness of lobby groups like the ACL given their relative success in gaining media coverage on issues of this type. Does this have a propensity to harm one side of a debate by allowing it to be too easily caricatured as fundamentalist? Does it marginalise the issue in an unhealthy way?  Anyhow, something for another day.

Let's talk about nuns

Nuns are a topic that I am keen to consider. 

Oddly, the issue of nuns is not straightforward these days.  Strict divisions have arisen.  First of all, there is a need to tread carefully between who is termed a nun (based upon a cloistered community or solemn vows) and who is termed a sister (living in the world or simple vows), but both are able to be addressed as ‘sister’ and can be called a ‘nun’ in common parlance.

Then there is the issue of the habit – should a nun wear a habit? For a look at great images of various orders’ habits, visit http://www.nunsandsisters.com/Home_Page.html  Conversely, if you want to see an argument against the habit, either look at the photos of the Josephites at St Mary MacKillop’s canonisation (they are the ones in the blue flight-attendant scarves) or, to see the argument in written form: http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=22477. (For the record, I side with the habit.)  

Next, there is the schizophrenic media approach to nuns. On the one hand, there is the eternal Sound-of-Music image of the kindly, habited nun wishing good upon all, and on the other hand there is the sort-of-kind-of-feminist, un-habited, permed-haired, social-justice-addicted sister perpetually under attack from the ‘hierarchy. For a fun representation of this latter view, see Tobias Wolff’s short story ‘The Missing Person’  in the collection ‘Back In the World’, which is a good story to boot.

Of course, the schizophrenic nature of media coverage arises due to the reader having the image of the habited nun as a readily avaliable stereotype, but where the religious sisters the subject of the story are not from the habited-end of the nun spectrum.  In other words, the media free rides on this image as a means to creating a certain sympathy in the story: poor nuns being cracked down upon by a hierarchy of old men etc.  

The most recent story (circulating today) involves an American’s nun’s book on sex education not conforming to Church teaching (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-05/vatican-denounces-nun-over-sex-book/4053384). The nun involved is not of the traditional type (obviously), but the story trades upon the notion of attacking a nun.

Another local example, a few years old now, concerns a nun was robbed and attacked in the street (and, as an example to us all, who unconditionally forgave the attacker).  The crime gained a special local media heinousness on the basis that it portrayed an attack on a defenceless nun.  It conjured the image of the habited sister being mercilessly set upon. The fact that she was not habited, so assumedly the robber’s offence was not aggravated by attacking a nun (in addition to the aggrivation of a defenceless elderly lady), did not feature.

Anyhow, just some things to ponder.

Obama’s doing it, why can’t we?

Hopefully you have not noticed, but there is a new campaign being run to enable you to show your support for same-sex marriage (if you must, see ido.org.au).  There are three protagonists.   

Marie Claire magazine, whose July edition (and besides the gay marriage hook), proves its love for diversity by (and this is not a joke) dealing with issues such as ‘my life as a porn writer’, ‘hoodie hysteria - when fashion turns deadly’ and ‘why you need a 5 year life plan’.  Obviously, the sort of serious publication that springs to mind when confronting the social issues of the day.  

Then there is Sunrise, the Channel 7 morning television program. Even if you’ve never seen it, you know the type of thing: the lovable bantering breaky team that you just feel you know.

And finally, Get-up, a social change group, that I suppose is something of a legitimate voice in this debate.

On a serious note, (so what to do with Marie Claire?) this issue does throw up some points worth commenting on. 

Firstly, and like many social issues, the pro and con camps quickly polarise and form into ‘CFZs’ – communication free zones.  Whilst we are all seemingly having a jolly old debate, and indeed using words from the very same dictionary, there is a stop upon the engagement and communication needed to resolve, or at least understand, key issues.

In the marriage debate, the CFZ appears to be over what marriage is. Is it about a public affirmation of love, and nothing more? Is it about enabling procreation in a stable environment and nothing more? Is it about ensuring social stability and children being raised by their mother and father? Etc. Clearly these are questions that need some serious thought.  They are also given it elsewhere (compare academics like Robert P George (Princeton) and Jenni Millbank (UTS Sydney)). Maybe we should read the ‘my life as a porn writer’ article for answers? (I’m also assuming that it is an article.)

Next comes the ‘social isolation’ aspect (a good writer on this topic is Bishop Charles Chaput, see most recently: A Heart on Fire: Catholic Witness and the Next America). I expect that if the person next to you on the bus was reading Marie Claire, you’d not really care.  There is certainly no faux pas. The point being that the more you are told, told and told that gay marriage is a ‘no brainer’, that not having it is a ‘denial of human rights’, that it is ‘inevitable’, the more you are punched into acceptance, if only acceptance by your silent disagreement.   

The last point I’d like to make concerns the statistical aspect to all of this. We are told, and I have no reason to doubt, that there is a consistently surveyed majority that in some way are not opposed to gay marriage.  These are often called the supporters on the issue.  I suspect that many branded supporters are perhaps better described as apathetic – along the lines of  ‘well if they want to get married, good luck to them, what do I care?’ 

The statistical representations, both mathematically and philosophically, require some further consideration.  For instance, how should an apathetic attitude be represented? Probably by having other categories besides ‘for’ and ‘against’.  Should there be some consideration given to those who support gay marriage but place no value on marriage between men and women? I recently read a statistic in (I think) First Things about the percentage of adults in the USA who are not married, and it was high.  How should this be dealt with?

Anyhow, some things to think about.

Goodbye Kumbaya – the lay of the land

Goodbye Kumbaya is a comment on the experience of being a Catholic, particularly in Australia, and particularly now. It began with a decision to leave one place and find another.   

I have a young family, and the parish we attended was itself attended to by a litany of distractions.  Chattering, before and after Mass, to a point that may  have embarrassed the local Westfields shopping centre.  The long removed alter rails overtime became a signal for parishioners to cross the sanctuary at will. Genuflecting became rare and bowing uncommon.  The (now former) priest, once out of church, did not dress clerically. Then there was the successful infiltration of PowerPoint projections, thrown up, one after the other, tempting easy distraction with pretty pictures of rustic loaves, crimson grapes, footprints on beaches, sunsets and hillsides. 

And one day came the man. The man with a beard and an acoustic guitar to  replace what would have been a parish mission with a concert of Catholic songs from the 70s and 80s.  It occured to my wife, more slowly to me, that this was no longer a parish which would assist with the Catholic raising of a child. It was time to say ‘goodbye Kumbaya’, and so we went elsewhere.