Comments on: News Ltd outrage patronises ordinary Australian Catholics

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

JamesK, I for one am relieved that the Jesuits have had the balls to tell it like it is. Fr Frank Brennan (also a Jesuit) has been expressing similar views for weeks. They, rather than company men like Pell and Fisher hiding behind legalism and denigration of victims, are the only reason one can have faith that the Catholic church is not actually evil.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And may your god go with you…..

By: Daniel Batt

Daniel Batt — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Good one, Irfan. The Saturday editorial the week before last must have been written by Frank Devine, as they were so sectarian in tone and content as to offend every other non-Catholic on the land. They said the media shoould respect the pope because he is the Vicar of Christ. Well, he states he is, but no non-Catholic believes it to be so. In fact, this was one of the causes of the Reformation … and when we talk to Muslims don’t we always say at least we have had the Reformation?

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Er Fr Frank Brennan does not agree with his own church wrt abortion and that was the point.

So Dave Liberts believes that there is no God but as he is a self declared humanist of which I approve, I will leave him with one of the most renown anti-clerical wags in history, Voltaire who reputedly said:

“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”

By: Irfan

Irfan — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

In case anyone is interested, Eureka Street ran a column that was originally meant to run in The Age but was taken off the page by the Editor-in-Chief at the last minute for a host of reasons.

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=8224

NewMatilda also ran a piece of similar import …

http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/07/24/dont-get-over-it

Anyway I gotta go and finish reading “The Essential Dave Allen” which Sydney-siders can pick up from Basement Books for around $6!!!

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Mary Ann's assessment inherent in her comment is not shared by me.
1. The idea of an "exposure" by Lateline as if it were "breaking' a new story.

2. Pell's treatment may or may not have been 'unfair'. That is not yet determined. Pell's letter was certainly no worse than the sentence meted out by the the judge who heard the case to the appalingly wayward priest .

3. Again we are not yet at all sure that Pell has anything to apologise for.

4. The "campaign against Cardinal Pell" does not refer to Pell's refusal acknowledge any wrong doing whatever that wrongdoing was. It refers to Lateline's and The Age's unfairly finding him guilty of wrongdoing whatever that was and sensationalising an old case on the eve of the arrival of the Pontiff.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Great article which I certainly trust will be read by all those WYD supporters who criticised those of us who criticised Pell and Fisher on these pages over the last few weeks.

By: dermot

dermot — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

i think a lot of catholics are like me did not bother reading the News limited stuff. as to the cardinal silly and bishop Fisher pompous and silly

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Quite right JamesK, I did indeed mis-read your comment about Fr Frank Brennan and apologise for accusing you of trying to wedge me. I’m all the more confused by why you cite this as evidence of me holding “one of the “extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers” just described by Irfan Yusuf” though. I also thank you for that superb quote from Voltaire - I’ll carry that one with me.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And JamesK, while we’re dragging up old Crikey articles to defend our points, here’s an example of an article where I’ve criticised a pro-Vatican-marketing exercise Catholic while supporting the position of a frustrated why-does-the-church-engage-in-this-rubbish Catholic:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080703-Catholics-distance-themselves-from-anti-annoyance-WYD-laws.html

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ah JamesK, your feeble attempt to wedge me ignores that many comments I have written on these pages have endeavoured to reflect my own sincere tolerance of people’s faith (although you appear to have missed the fact that that ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ are far from the same thing). I may not precisely agree with Fr Frank Brennan on abortion, but he is certainly entitled to back the Catholic church’s stand on the question of abortion and its morality and although I’m pro-choice this is not the same as being ‘pro-abortion’. Tolerance of people’s sincere faith-based morality is what I support. What I accordingly DON’T support is hypocrisy on the part of churches. The Catholic Church’s decades of coverups, denials, legalistic defensiveness and ongoing shiftiness about its role in priest abuse is outstandingly hypocritical for an organisation which is supposedly all about protecting the vulnerable and helping those who need it in line with the teachings of Jesus. This is the Jesuits’ point too. I strongly agree with them on this. Contrary to your comment, I have endeavoured not to be ‘anti-Catholic’ in my commentary (although I would happily describe myself as ‘anti-Vatican’ on the strength of what I’ve seen lately). My position is not extreme at all, I’m just angry at the thought of the Catholic hierarchy parading their church as being without fault (or with minimal fault) so as to maximise their marketing and minimise their legal liability for some horrific wrongs. This is all I’ve been saying all along. I support Catholics who put Jesus ahead of the Vatican - Brennan and Fr Bob Maguire are two prominent Catholic priests who I respect for doing just that. For what it’s worth, I am an athiest who believes that as a philosopher, Jesus presents an excellent model for societal organisation.

By: Mary Ann

Mary Ann — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

ABC’s Lateline exposure of Pell’s unjust treatment of a young man who had been subjected to sexual assault by a priest, and of Pell’s refusal to acknowledge any wrong doing was described as “a campaign against Cardinal Pell”.

By: Antique

Antique — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Good comment. Pity that reasonable rank and file members of various faiths always seem to have self-satisfied twits like Pell and Hilay whose pontifications are taken to represent the opinions of all members of their faith.

Thank God, whoever she may be, that I am agnostic. My intolerance of intolerance is philosophical, not religious.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As usual with Dave Liberts out comes talk with the dressing or facade of authenticity and reason but there are no references and no reasoned argument.

Unlike you Dave I am not 'au fait' with what the "Jesuits have had the balls to tell it like it is" arguments. I have also never heard of Fr Frank Brennan. That being so, it could reasonably be assumed that many others have not also. But please do let that stop you pontificating.

I have just googled 'Fr Frank Brennan".

Is he this Fr Frank Brennan who holds that, in Catholic teaching, abortion is not the moral equivalent of murder and that in a pluralist democracy, it is wrong to have a law prohibiting all abortions?

For those interested in Dave Liberts anti-catholic stance read the comments from last weeks Crikey editorial and my responses. Dave I suspect you fit in to one of the "extreme positions, patronising and offensive to believers" just described by Irfan Yusuf .

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Apologies! Reference to the Crikey editorial last week:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Crikey-Says/20080717-Crikey-Says.html