Some people attract the label ‘Teflon’ because no dirt seems to stick to them. Some have a different problem. They cannot open their mouth without putting their foot it in it.
George Pell is in the latter group. He gave an address to the faithful that he and The Australian thought it would be a good idea to have published in that paper. It is full of the political views and the clubby language that you expect from that source – such as the lament that ‘social conservatives’ are ‘regularly assailed by the woke activists even in sport.’ (Three cheers for Izzy!)
You would have to ask George to explain why going on that kind of training run in the company of Rupert Murdoch and his litigious son helps bear witness to the Jewish hasid who got put away as an activist – and set aside some time for George’s response – but here is another observation of George to the faithful.
…any Western society that is based on the premise of equality before the law and ascribes a common dignity to each person, citizen, or foreigner, productive or dependent, young and healthy or old and dependent – such a society can continue only when sustained by Christian ideals of universal love, often expressed as human rights, derived from a creator God.
It is not clear whether George believes that only Christianity can be the source for such a view of dignity and equality. His remarks that a ‘post-Christian instinct or sympathy can suffice’ does not help resolve that issue – and we can put to one side ‘creator’. But let’s proceed on the footing that George says you can source belief in equality and common dignity from Kant and the Enlightenment or Christianity.
The question then is: which brand of Christianity? The church of England is splitting in public over such issues. And if it is George’s brand, then women and gay people do not have rights to equality and common dignity.
And that is most certainly the case with Izzy’s brand. Saying that gay people go to hell is not the way to share common dignity or universal love. That’s the way you empty churches – a subject acknowledged by George, but not explained. That’s a pity. He has first-hand knowledge of the matter.
Elsewhere the press commented on another member of the faithful – although this time, of a fearfully different brand. A well-respected member of the Liberal Party, and a former minister, disclosed that she had been responsible for sacking Scott Morrison from a position of public trust. The ground was that he could not be trusted. The Liberal Party sat on this by saying he left after a ‘personality clash’.
Has it come to this? A wife catches her husband in bed with another man, or woman, and shoots both of them. A Russian commissar has issues with a village of kulaks and liquidates the village. Do we just dismiss each as a ‘personality clash’?
Politics – religion – Pell – RC Church – Church of England – equality – gay rights.