"It's not my building, its God's".

Well, that isn't quite the quote, I admit, but it could have been said. I am referring to an excellent article in Saturday's edition of The Age called "Mad, bad or masterful?" by Ray Edgar on La Sagrada Familia, the Barcelonian Church and dream of Antonio Gaudi, nearing completion and to be consecrated by Pope Benedict XVI this coming Sunday. It is a very good article, which brings to light a Melbourne connection with the Church. Melbourne architect and professor at RMIT, Mark Burry, has been working on the Church as a consultant for thirty years, and the article focuses on his attitude toward La Sagrada Familia and its original architect.

The quotation is actually from Burry himself, who said "It's not my building, it's Gaudi's", but the whole article points to a controversy in the direction of the heading of this post. At the end of the article, Burry says, in answer to the question "But is it in service to God or Gaudi?":

"It's a church," says Burry. "Its purpose is to afford the congregation of people from all walks of life with a place for one purpose. If they are thinking of architects, they will be thinking of Gaudi and an architect who died in 1926, who had the capacity to inspire people to make money sufficient to get the church started and built, and inspired people to continue that work 80 years after his death."

And it is precisely this point - that La Sagrada Familia is a CHURCH - that gets up the nose of secularist opponents to this amazing and miraculous project. As Edgar summarises:

While zealots have, over the years, nominated Gaudi himself for sainthood, not everyone is rejoicing in the building's completion. This landmark of the city, which attracts 2.6 million tourists a year, is also a symbol of the divisions within it. The issues involve heritage, the role of the church and state, and, indeed, the reputation of the architect himself - one whose architecture teacher described him to his students as "a genius and probably mad". [my emphasis]

He goes on:

Indeed, the cultural tremors surrounding the Sagrada Familia date back decades... After the war, Europe's cultural elite felt the same way about continuing construction on the site. Architectural luminaries such as Le Corbusier and Gropius signed local petitions against it. More recently, FAD, the key artistic and architectural union in Barcelona, produced the "Gaudi: Red Alert" manifesto signed by the Spanish intelligentsia, including the head of the Reina Sofia museum. Former FAD president Beth Gali herself appears in Robert Hughes' 2003 Gaudi documentary offering facetious proposals for the new sections of the church - a Christo wrapping, a train station, which Hughes, another opponent, happily endorses. In his 1992 book on the city, Hughes laments, "Nothing can be done about the Sagrada Familia".

"There's lots of reasons to think of why you wouldn't want to continue that building," Mark Burry says. "That it's better off as a ruin, testament to a tragic genius, or that it's better to rethink religious observance for the 21st century in a different form. I asked them myself when I came here in 1979. Why didn't they adapt it to a secular plan? It seemed like that would be a more ecumenical approach. I was told it's not my building, it's Gaudi's building."

......Barcelona-based architect David Mackay, a partner in the prestigious architectural firm MBM Architects, who signed the petition against the project along with Le Corbusier, says the church is the product of Gaudi's deluded obsession, rather than the great man's best work. Gaudi was in thrall to God and "his mind was stolen by fundamentalism". What has been created in his wake is "Gaudi at his worst", says Mackay. [my emphasis]

You get the drift. Gaudi's creation is an afront to the intelligentsia of Spain because it is a religious testament, and that seems out of step with today's modern Spanish ideals. As if to prove the point:

A high-speed train tunnel connecting Paris, Barcelona and Madrid passes within 0.4 metres of the World Heritage-listed building's foundations. Despite the four-year campaign by the Sagrada Familia's chief architect, Jordi Bonet, and pressure from UNESCO, Spain's Socialist government commissioned tests and allowed the 12-metre-diameter drill to bore past. To not do so, advocates of the tunnel argued, would be to allow the church to "hold back the progress of Spain".

Philistines.

As a side note, another thing mentioned in the article that strikes me is the "holism" of the vision for the Church:

"For me the fascination of Gaudi is his holism," [Burry] says. "Whether it's structure or construction or decoration or form or repertoire of materials or economics, he seems to be the master." ...The argument follows that like the cathedrals of old, one architect could not possibly finish it in their lifetime. "Gaudi knew this," says Burry, "and used the models to explain it well enough for others to continue the job."

The same holistic vision is what appeals to me about our own Cathedral of St Patrick in Melbourne. It is an entire whole, a complete vision inside and out of Wardell's single architectural plan.

I thank God for La Sagrada Familia and the dedication of men like Mark Burry in seeing it to its completion. Edgar reports that "thanks to Gaudi, the Pope's visit to Spain will probably receive more attention than his recent visit to London". In a sense it will be a continuation of the Holy Father's message in Britain. Gaudi's Church is a statement that, even in our modern society, there can be no true human "progress" in a society that loses sight of God.

Your Vote, Your Values

Coming out this weekend in all parishes in Victoria is a joint statement from the Catholic diocesan bishops of Victoria, Archbishop Denis Hart (Archbishop of Melbourne), and Bishops Peter Connors (Ballarat), Joseph Grech (Sandhurst), and Christopher Prowse (Sale) called "Your Vote, Your Values: Issues and Questions for Parliamentary Candidates for the Victorian Election".

I have been eagerly awaiting this document, as I have been wanting to write to my local member and to the other candidates to ascertain where they stand on a number of crucial issues. This is because things are not simple in the State of Victoria at the moment. The political values of the parties and leaders are not clearly demarcated, and the policies of all parties seem more designed to get themselves elected than to do what is right for the state. There are good and honest and virtuous candidates in all the parties, but their own values do not always translate into the value of the party as a whole or that of their leaders.

But we don't get to elect a party or a leader, we only get to elect a candidate. So it is vital to know what your candidate stands for. "Your Vote, Your Values" provides a series of issues and related questions on a number of values, including Life, Families, Education, Health and Aged Care, Community, and Religious Freedom. Taking this statement, I have written it up as a questionnaire in table form for my local member and the other candidates (I have turned all the questions into "Yes/No" questions for quick answering, and also added a question about funding palliative care - I don't know why that was left off the list). I am going to send it to each of them, and request a response. I will inform them also that I am a blogger, and will report on their responses (or lack of response) to my readers on my blog (the questionnaire is rather extensive, and it is not likely that they would go to the bother of answering it unless they knew that it was going to be reported).

I wonder what the response will be?

In the mean time, if you want to do the same, you can download the questionnaire from here from Media Fire (sorry, free Wordpress doesn't support document hosting). You can find out information about the Election and Candidates from this website. Note that official nominations for the 2010 Victorian State election only open next Wednesday, 3 November, so start writing your letters now ready to post next week.

Please share any responses you get with us in the combox to this post, or email them to me and I will post them.

Our St Mary: More likely to pray for vocations than to challenge for women "priests"

Dr Laura Beth Bugg (a lecturer in sociology of religion at the University of Sydney) writes in the Sydney Morning Herald:

This past week a woman was ordained a Catholic priest in Canada. The church did not sanction her ordination, and she will shortly be excommunicated. Roman Catholic Womenpriests, a movement for women's ordination that began in 2002, supervised the ordination. Since that time nearly 100 women worldwide have been ordained, although none have been recognised by the church.

These are not women who wish to break off from the church; they want to reimagine it. There are yet other Catholic feminists who understand the very concept of priesthood and the hierarchical structure of the church as fatally flawed. They do not wish to see women as priests, but to see the entire Catholic community as one that is radically democratic and committed to peace-making, justice and community building.

...Perhaps the legacy of St Mary and others like her who have spoken out boldly and faithfully will be to inspire new generations to speak to the structures of hierarchy and patriarchy that choke the church and countless other religious institutions.

Dr Bugg attempts in this article to use (abuse?) St Mary of the Cross MacKillop for her cause. As she herself points out, St Mary wisely advised: "Never see a need without doing something about it". But I am confident that, rather than trying to "reimagine the Church", St Mary was and is more likely to follow Jesus' own directions, as he said: "The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest."

Taking your (Greek) bible to Church

It is a regular practice for protestants to take not only their hymnal but also their bibles to church with them on Sunday - although these days there are usually "pew bibles" (ie. copies of the bible in the pews already) provided. They are likely to look up the readings for the day and to read along as the lector is reading the lessons. Catholics on the other hand get everything in their missals (except the hymns, but I'm not going there just now), or at least on their bulletin sheets, so, even if they do read along with the reading instead of just listening to it (that is another question too, which we will deal with another time), they don't really ever get the readings in context. Often too, they are not even aware of where it comes in the bible.

All that being as it is, my issue here today is that I have decided that in the future I will take my Greek New Testament along to mass, because I have become very suspicious of the tranlstion in our missal. We are stuck with the current translation - which I understand are a modified version of the Jerusalem Bible - for at least the next twelve months, when - again as I understand it - we will get a modified version of the New Revised Standard Version instead. That should be an approvement, depending on the level of modification. But it will surely be a relief to leave the JB well and truly behind.

All this is prompted by last week's gospel, on the Pharisee and the Publican, Luke 18:9-14. Here is how the missal has it:

Gospel Lk 18:9-14
A reading from the holy Gospel according to Luke
The publican returned to his home justified; the pharisee did not.
Jesus spoke the following parable to some people who prided themselves on being virtuous and despised everyone else, ‘Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood there and said this prayer to himself, “I thank you, God, that I am not grasping, unjust, adulterous like the rest of mankind, and particularly that I am not like this tax collector here. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes on all I get.” The tax collector stood some distance away, not daring even to raise his eyes to heaven; but he beat his breast and said, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” This man, I tell you, went home again at rights with God; the other did not. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the man who humbles himself will be exalted.’

I have highlighted a word-stem that occurs three times in that story, and (in the missal) once in the short summary of the Gospel at the beginning (which isn't read aloud). The word-stem is the Greek "dikai-/dikoi-" stem. I am teaching Romans at the moment for Anima Education, and so my ears are very attuned to this word and its translations. The word can basically be translated in two directions, either as "righteous" or as "just", from which we get "justification" and "justify" as well. The confusion abounds in the above translation which translates "dikaioi" in verse 9 as "virtuous" (instead of "righteous"), "adikoi" in verse 11 as "unjust", and "dedikaiomenos" in verse 14 as "at rights with God". For good measure, the initial summary translates "dedikaiomenos" as "justified". Reading (or, even more, listening) to this parable told in the Jerusalem Bible translation obscures the fact that the central question of the story is: Who is "Righteous"?

And that of course, requires the preacher or homilist to explain to the assembly what "righteous" actually means - for the one thing it certainly doesn't mean in the New Testament is "virtuous" (as suggested in this translation). It wasn't a question for the Pharisee whether he was "virtuous" or not. The point was that he kept the Torah. And keeping the Torah demonstrated that he was among God's elect, that is, one of the "Righteous". Not like that other bloke over there who was one like the rest of mankind, like the Gentiles, ie. "a-dikoi", "UN-Righteous". (Cf. for comparison Jesus' directions in Matt 18:17 - "treat him as you would a gentile or a tax collector", ie. not one of the "Righteous", not one of God's "elect"). The surprising thing in Luke's parable is that Jesus says it was this tax-collector, and not the Pharisee who was "shown to be Righteous" ("dedikaiomenos"). It fits amazingly well with the use of the "dikai-" stem in Paul!

But all that is obscured by the Jerusalem Bible translation. The other translations are only marginally better. The NIV uses "righteousness", "evildoers" and "justified" (in that order), the NRSV uses "righteous", "rogues", and "justified". The RSV is probably best with "righteous", "unjust" and "justified", but that is still obscured by the different English stems ("righteous" and "just") to translate the single Greek stem ("dikai-").

Of course, all this I only suspected while at Mass last Sunday. I had to wait to check it up when I got home. In the future, I will be taking my Greek bible to Church!

Sherlock

I have been very impressed with the new version of Sherlock Holmes that has been showing on Channel Nine (BBC One "Sherlock"). I caught only the last one on the telly on Sunday night, and have watched the first episode on the catchup channel on the internet.

A review in The Sunday Age accurately called Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of the title role as Holmes a mixture of Hornblower, Dr Who and House. He is a thoroughly interesting and engaging character. Martin Freeman does an excellent Dr Watson. The relationship between the two is filled with good humour and warmth - odd given how cold Holmes is supposed to be.

Clearly this series owes something to the recent Sherlock Holmes film - many of the usual cliches such as the deerstalker are abandoned, and the theme music is very similar - but they go one step further in placing Holmes in modern day London rather than in Victorian England. This has been done before, of course. The Basil Rathbone series was in a contemporary (1930's) setting, if I remember correctly.

A striking feature of the modern Sherlock is his use of the modern mobile phone to instantly access data from the internet. He also texts. He doesn't smoke - but clearly he once did as he is using nicotine patches to overcome his addiction and help him think. The drugs are there too (somewhere), and he has a go (unsuccessful) at boxing in the third episode. Mrs Hudson, 221B Baker Street, even the Irregulars are all there in an updated manner.

Really this is very good television.

Cute, and helpful, even if misdirected

[caption id="attachment_4382" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Cartoon by Bill Leak, The Australian, Monday 25th October 2010"][/caption]

Today's cartoon in The Australian is cute, but a little misdirected. I don't think it is the Lutherans of Woodside that are making all the noise against the proposed assylum seeker processing centre (Woodside was not one of the 19th Century SA German settlements, although of course, there are lots of descendants living there). Although the historical reminder is worth taking note of. I tell my children that some of our ancestors came to Australia as religious "assylum seekers". George Fife Angas, a Baptist who sponsored their settlement in South Australia, saw their plight as not unlike that of the dissenters of Great Britain. The South Australian colony at the time welcomed the newcomers as they were a good source of labour and were productive farmers providing much needed food for the new settlement. In the 19th Century, South Australia was one of the most multi-cultural colonies in Australia. Bill Leak's humour, though misdirected, should at least be a reminder to South Australians that "we've done this before" and benefited from it.

What Ho, Fr Denton! Rector of Domus Australis!

[caption id="attachment_4379" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Fr Anthony Denton"][/caption]

Oh, I say. Talk about falling on your feet! Fr Anthony Denton, our one time Vocations Director here in the glorious See of Melbourne, has been dubbed the first "Rector of Domus Australis".

"Fr Denton is currently completing a doctorate in Dogmatic Theology in Rome, is a keen historian, speaks fluent Italian and has an insider's knowledge of Rome and the Vatican city," Archbishop Hart said.

Cardinal Pell agreed. "We are very fortunate to have a priest like Fr Denton in this role," he said, adding that Domus Australia would continue the long established Church tradition of providing accommodation for pilgrims in holy places and that it would also be a religious and cultural centre for visitors to Rome.

"A centre such as this requires an outstanding priest with energy and vision and we look forward to Fr Denton working with us in this role," the Cardinal said.

I can't wait to visit Rome again - and hopefully this time I will be able to stay at Domus Australis and experience the hospitality of the Rector. He certainly can't complain, in this new role, that people are "dropping in on him" from home. I hope that he finds time to complete his doctoral studies. Something about Eastern ecclesiology, if I remember correctly...

In the meantime, have a gizz at this video - no mention of the new Rector, unfortunately.

Another significant new Cardinal

[caption id="attachment_4372" align="aligncenter" width="324" caption="Archbishop - soon to be Cardinal - Malcom Ranjith"][/caption]Sandro Magister correctly predicted one of the Cardinals in the latest announcement:

ROME, October 14, 2010 – In Sri Lanka, the bishops and priests dress all in white, as can be seen in the unusual photograph above: with the entire clergy of the diocese of Colombo, the capital, diligently listening to its archbishop, Malcolm Ranjith, who is likely to be made a cardinal at the next concistory.

He was quite right. Malcolm Ranjith, one time secretary of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship, is also one of the Church's foremost proponents of returning to ad orientam celebration of the liturgy along with kneeling to receive Communion and reception of communion on the tongue. Take the time to read Magister's piece and you will understand where Pope Benedict is coming from.

"Progressive, rational, independent"... and wrong

Tony Smith (who "holds a PhD in political science. He has taught at several universities including the University of Sydney"), in the October 15 edition of Eureka Street writes a piece about the religious beliefs of New South Wales Premier, Kristina Keneally. I wouldn't know Ms Keneally from Eve, so what I say here is no reflection on her. It is a reflection, rather of Dr Smith's praise for a kind of "Catholicism" which has one main fault: it isn't Catholic.

Dr Smith says that "Keneally's faith makes an interesting study". He contrasts her "Catholicism" with Tony Abbott's "great enthusiasm for Catholic orthodoxy" (although, it should be said, for all that "enthusiasm", Mr Abbot is no less of a politician than Ms Keneally). He writes that "by contrast Premier Keneally represents a growingly assertive Catholicism which might be described as progressive, rational and independent".

So, what are these "progressive, rational and independant" beliefs? Let's look at them (please note, I am commenting on Dr Smith's assessment of what comprises "progressive, rational and independant" beliefs - I am not judging Ms Keneally's faith):

1) "Keneally has stated plainly her belief that Catholic women should not be excluded from ordination." Progressive? Depends what you mean by "progress", I guess. Rational? Depends what your premises are. Independant? Independant of the Catholic Magisterium, that's for sure.

2) "In explaining her decision to support a bill to remove anomalies from the Adoption Act so that same sex couples would be eligible to adopt, Keneally noted the importance of allowing all MPs a 'conscience vote'. She described how her conscience was informed by Catholic teaching about the 'primacy' of conscience and the importance of actively developing the conscience." Is the example here her ideas about "same sex adoption" or her ideas about what "primacy of conscience" might mean? If in regard to "same sex-adoption", again it depends on what you call "progress" and what your premises are. In regard to "primacy of conscience" this isn't an accurate application of the doctrine.

Dr Smith says that "Keneally has not compromised her religious faith". Fair enough. But if what Dr Smith says is true, her witness to her faith cannot be held up as a shining example for Catholics to follow. (Not that I am saying that Mr Abbott's example can be). It is possible to be "progressive, rational and independant" AND wrong at the same time.

As if we needed proof...

...that our Western society cannot handle saints.

According to this report in the Herald Sun, Zoo Magazine (called a "men's magazine" - which is even more insulting to men than calling "New Idea" a "women's magazine") has dealt with the canonisation of Mary MacKillop in the only way it can: by sexualisation and ridicule.

This tacky incident speaks volumes about how uncomfortable our society is with holiness. In Australian society, a common way to handle an uncomfortable situation is to make a joke of it. And a well known tactic of the devil (both inside and outside of the Church) to undermine both the holiness of the saints and the holiness of sex within the sacrament of marriage is to pervert both together at the same time.

As I see it, Zoo Magazine has just provided Exhibit A in the case against Western society. Whatever may be said for Islamic societies, you wouldn't find anything like this there.

Historian Cardinal

[caption id="attachment_4364" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Monsignor (soon to be Cardinal) Walter Brandmueller"][/caption]

Among the new cardinals announced by Pope Benedict XVI for the November 24 consistory is a priest who is over 80 (and therefore not entitled to vote in a papal election), Monsignor Walter Brandmüller, former president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences. This cannot be seen as anything other than a papal approval for Mons. Brandmuller's historical work. I have read his book "Lights and Shadows: Church History among faith, facts and legend", and can highly recommend it.

I was a stranger and you welcomed me

I have been a little dismayed in the last 24 hours listening to the angry words of Woodside residents in South Australia reacting to the Federal Government's announcement that disused military accomodation in the Adelaide Hills will be used as an on-shore assylum seeker detention and processing centre. I have been listening to the radio news, and haven't found a lot of it in the print media, but you could see here, here and here for more information.

I can understand the Woodsiders' frustration at lack of consultation. Apparently Julia Gillard was in Woodside recently, and entirely failed to mention any plans for the establishment of the centre. I can understand parents concerns that the children of the assylum seekers will be sent to the local schools. This isn't an issue of racism, but an issue about a school system already overstretched. The local community is entitled to ask about extra funding and expansion of the schools to take an additional 200 students with very special needs. And I can also understand members of the community being angry about the fact that 10 million dollars will be spent on the centre, including 24/7 medical and dental services - when similar services for the locals exist only in their dreams.

All this I can understand, and all this reflects badly on the Federal government. But I have been deeply saddened to hear, in much of the rhetoric eminating from the public meeting at Woodside, such ugly words directed against the assylum seekers themselves. I had not thought that the "stop the boats" slogans had been quite so effective. I hope that the Christian community of Woodside and their pastors will be able to lead the community in general into a more welcoming embrace of the stranger.

Listen to the Chants of the New Missal!

My friend Paul Taylor drew my attention to this page from the US National Association of Pastoral Musicians.

Here you can listen to the singing of the chants for the new English missal (unfortunately, no Credo). A great learning resource!

Truth is dispensible if it makes you feel guilty

There is a breathtaking article in the Herald Sun today. Here it is with [my comments]:

No shame in aborting unborn life
Susie O'Brien
From: Herald Sun October 19, 2010

CHOOSING to terminate a pregnancy is better than ending up as a bad mother who hurts or neglects her kids. It's time we realise that having an abortion doesn't mean you don't care about the unborn life you are carrying. [That's the thesis. Now for the rationale, such as it is.]

Women abort potential babies because they would prefer not to be a mother at all, rather than be an inadequate parent. It's not that they don't care about the unborn child, it's because they care so much. That is the startling finding that emerges from groundbreaking new Victorian research. [They learnt this from "research"?]

In the aftermath of the Queensland case that saw two young people put on trial for taking legally available medication to terminate a pregnancy, it's time to reassert the rights of women who choose to have an abortion. [Is it? Remember the thing about rights: if someone has an authentic right, we have an absolute duty to provide it.]

Although Tegan Leach, 21, and her boyfriend, Sergie Brennan, 22, were acquitted, thousands of women are still made to feel like criminals because they choose to terminate a pregnancy. [Note the importance of feelings, note too the equation in this article between legal and moral/ethical.]

However, a startling new Melbourne study lifts the veil of secrecy on this issue, uncovering both the complex decision-making women go through, and the guilt and judgments they have to endure from doctors and others. ["guilt and judgements" - the true crime]

There is still a feeling in society that a woman who has an abortion is blithely ending the life of another potential human being. [Again, "there is a FEELING". I don't know whether the person who performs an abortion is doing it "blithely" or not, but the reality that a real (not only "potential") human life is being ended has nothing to do with "feelings".]

It's said she's selfishly putting herself before the needs of her unborn baby, or just using abortion as a form of contraception. [That may or may not be the case. The motives may be many.]

Let's face it, lots of people have had abortions, but would never talk about it, and can find it hard even using the A word. Some hide their experience as a shameful secret from their loved ones for years. [Let's face it, lot's of people do it, so it must be okay, yeah?]

There are even still lines of people placarding abortion clinics, willing to call her a baby killer to her face. ["Even still"? In this day and age...]

And let's not forget that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott in the past has condemned the abortion rate, saying that he was concerned about an "abortion epidemic" and doesn't "much like abortion, full stop". [No, don't forget him. How dare he!]

Now I don't think anyone should be celebrating their abortion, or shouting it from the rooftops, but women shouldn't feel bad about pursuing a courageous, legal course of action. [If it is "courageous", it should be "celebrated", no? But just because it is "legal" doesn't make it moral.]

Yes, it is a big, important, life-changing event that should be taken seriously - but let's get off the guilt-trip. [Because after all, guilt is the real bad here, not the killing of an unborn human being.]

In the only study of its kind in recent years, researchers spoke to a group of 60 Victorian women aged 16 to 38 who rang a Royal Women's Hospital pregnancy advice service for help about their reasons for considering an abortion. The research team was led by Dr Maggie Kirkman from the University of Melbourne's Centre for Women's Health and Society.

The group was hand-picked [so not random, huh?]to include women who were 16-18 years old, rural wome, and women who had rung the advice service in their second trimester (12 to 18 weeks). All but five went on to have an abortion.

Women in this position - and, yes, this includes me ( I have written previously about the fact that I had an abortion 20 years ago) [Right. So may we be excused for thinking that this article is some attempt to come off your own guilt-trip? A sort of "Oprah" confession? You want we should cheer you?]- were thoughtful and painstaking in their deliberations.

In making their decision, they assessed their capacity to be a good mother and provide for their child. They also took into account their relationships and the role of the father and the impact on other children. Many of the women had multiple reasons, and went through a complex process of making a decision, and weighing up the options. As one teen, Prue, said, she thought it was better to have an abortion than be a bad mother. [Because, like, you know, its better to just put an end to thier lives here and now, rather than have us all suffer later, you know?]

It might sound counter-intuitive, but it actually makes perfect sense. [???!!!!????]

We also shouldn't harshly judge those seeking abortions in their second trimester. [No, you are right, we shouldn't judge anyone (not the least because that might make the guilty actually FEEL guilty). Judge not and you will not be judged and all that. But we can point out faulty thinking and bad rationalisations and wrong reasons and evil actions. Love the sinner, hate the sin.]

One woman interviewed, Abigail, didn't realise she was pregnant until this time, and decided to have an abortion because she had been drinking heavily and feared for the foetus's health. [How curious. A kind of prenatal euthanasia...]

"You know, you don't just have a child because you can," she told researchers. [Um...?]

But it's still not easy, and I think it's important to acknowledge this. Out of the 60 women, only three made the decision quickly or with any ease. [You're right. You actually have to work very, very hard to convince yourself that a really, really bad idea is a good one. And you won't feel good about it, because you like me and everyone else actually have a conscience which tells you not to do what is wrong, but to do what is right. And you are trying to make these young girls feel better by simply telling them "It's not wrong" in the first place.]

In her paper, published in the November edition of the international Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Journal, Dr Kirkman reports that women still feel stigmatised by doctors and others "both for being inappropriately pregnant and for terminating the pregnancy". [So, how can we help people to be "appropriately" pregnant and KEEP the child?]

Now, around 80,000 women claim Medicare rebates for abortions in Australia each year, with about one in five women terminating a pregnancy at some point in their lives.

As I say, it's not really a cause for celebration, but neither is it a cause for great shame or sadness. [You are right, it isn't a case for celebration, because it is a tragedy. But unless you acknoweldge what a tragedy it is, if you want to cover it up and call it "courageous" and "smart", then why not celebrate it? I will tell you why. Because you have a conscience which can't quite get over the fact that there is indeed something wrong with abortion.]

There are so many parents out there making bad decisions or hurting their kids - ranging from the woman who drove kids home in the boot, to Robert Farquarson, to the South Australian parents who starved their kids then made them beg for dog food. [All of these are horrific, but than God, rare occurences. The occurence of child abuse in the community is high, but no where near as high as the abortion rate. The parenting instinct kicks in for most parents. In the mean time, this argument amounts to "We'll hurt them now so we don't hurt them later".]

So it doesn't make sense to harshly judge those who make a positive decision that they are not ready to be parents. [They should have thought about this before they had the sexual intercourse that resulted in them being parents. Once the conception takes place, bingo: you're parent. If you fail to care for the child in the womb, you are no morally better than one who doesn't care for the child after birth.]

Isn't it better to end the pregnancy than be a parent when you know you are not ready for it? [You want it short and sweet sister? The answer is NO.]

More on Mary...

[caption id="attachment_4351" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Cartoon by Bruce Petty, The Age, 18/10/2010"][/caption]

The above cartoon did cause a little chuckle, I must admit... (Note the nuns in brown habits frolicking outside the window).

Saints really are "good news stories", and Saint Mary has been one for the Church in Australia. But I must admit that if I hear one more person say that she is "a saint for all Australias" or that she "belongs to Australia", I will... well, I don't don't know what I will do. Probably just groan and put up with it. The fact is that Saint Mary is who she is, and belongs to Who she belongs to. When she chose her new name in religious life, she didn't choose "Sister Mary of All Australia" or "Sister Mary of the Battler" or anything like that. She chose "Sister Mary of the Cross".

The Cross. That "emblem of suff'ring and shame" as the old song has it. Why has there been so little focus on this in recent days? Have we been ashamed of the Cross? The very least that could have been said is about how she bore her own "crosses" in her life - but for Saint Mary "the Cross" was the Cross on which the Sacred Heart was pierced (remember the full name of her order, and the fact that Fr Woods was a Passionist and you will get a good clue to all this). The Cross which proclaims the salvation which is in Jesus Christ and in no other. So very little commentary surrounding the canonisation has mentioned Jesus Christ. That isn't the fault of Catholic doctrine, nor is it the fault of Mary, but it might just be the fault of those who are hungry for a good news story and an "Australian hero", rather than for an opportunity for evangelisation.

All sorts of people are wanting to co-opt her at the moment. There is the suggestion in today's Age (from a Jesuit at America Magazine no less) that she become the patron saint of those who have been abused. Well, maybe. But I'm not particularly sure what makes Saint Mary of the Cross any more suitable for that job than any other saint. I would have thought that Saint Maria Goretti would have been the most likely candidate for that portfolio.

Then there is all this business of miracles and prayers. Someone asked me at my class tonight: how do the saints know we are asking them to pray for us? Do they watch over us? Are they omnipresent and omniscient like God? As far as I know, the answer to the last question is "no". The saints "hear" our "prayers" (technically our "requests for their intercession" - Catholics may "pray" to the saints, but they never offer "intercessions" to anyone but God) spiritually, as an outcome of their complete communion with God in Jesus Christ. They, like us, are in the one communion in Jesus Christ - a communion which not even death can sever (Romans 8). Christ is not simply the mediator between the saints and God, it is his Spirit that joins all the saints, living and departed, into a single communion of love, such that he is the connecting point between the saints themselves. It is in this communion of charity in Christ that the saints "hear" our requests for their intercession. This is an area of theological reflection that deserves a great deal more reflection.

Which brings us back to Mother Mary. Mary was once an Australian. Whatever else we may retain of our personality in heaven, the one thing I am pretty sure we will not retain is "ethnicity" in the sense of nationalistic or racial distinction from one another. The Virgin Mary and the Apostles were once all Jews, Newman was an Englishman, Padre Pio was an Italian. Now they are all fully and simply "human". Mary too is a saint for the universal Church. She belongs to the Cross of Christ, not to Australia. Surely that is what St Paul was on about in Galatians 3 when he said that there is now "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female"? It is what Mary is now, more than what she was then, which is important.

Saint Mary MacKillop: A "rebel"?

On the Compass coverage of the canonisation last night, Geraldine Doogue interviewed the Secretary of the Bishops Conference, Fr Brian Lucas. He insisted that Mary was "a woman of the Church" and could not in anyway be painted as "a rebel". Needless to say, Geraldine just about choked on this assertion and begged to differ. Fr Lucas, however, wasn't having any of it.

My friend, Andrew Rabel, filed a report for "Inside the Vatican Newsflash" (my link for this isn't working - sorry). Here's some of what he wrote:

With the news that Australia was to have its first saint canonized on October 17, the normally secular country has erupted with joy. But it seems that many are more interested in a false conception of Mary, and perhaps this is a reflection of attitudes that have prevailed following the Second Vatican Council.

For instance, looking on the website romancatholicwomenpriests.org, a blog by Bridget Mary says, “Pope Benedict will canonize Mother Mary MacKillop, an excommunicated nun. Perhaps, this Pope is offering hope to the many thousands of Catholics who have been excommunicated, including women priests. Excommunication is not a barrier to canonization.”
Yes, but Mary Mackillop’s excommunication was lifted a few months later by the very bishop who performed the sentence, realizing he had been badly advised.

Following the tensions that came in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, there has been the tendency for different factions in the Church to use a person like Mary MacKillop to bolster their own cause.

...Mary MacKillop was far from being a rebel. She was a woman of deep fidelity and loyalty to the Catholic Church. ...In 1873 when MacKillop met Blessed Pius IX at the Vatican, in an attempt to gain approval of her order by the Holy See, she recognized her lowliness in having been excommunicated (albeit falsely) and said that meeting the Holy Father was a day that was worth years of suffering.

...Unfortunately, people today who resist Church authority in matters like women's ordination or contraception etc ...use Mary MacKillop as an example to justify these actions. They say "She was disobedient and payed the price for that. Now the Church has made her a saint because of this".

For starters, Mary MacKillop founded her order of nuns to teach the Catholic faith to the poor children of Australia. She knew that in this emerging waspish country the faith was under attack by people of influence who wanted secular education only. Her resistance to Bishop Sheil's edict had nothing to with disobedience, as such. She had made religious vows to live her life in a certain manner, with the principle of self-government that he had agreed to. Suddenly when things had not gone to his liking, he had no authority to tell Mary to conduct her community differently, and this was the advice she had been given by her Jesuit confessors who had been trained in canon law. Bishop Sheil had limited knowledge of these areas.

The Holy See approved the rule, with a few modifications, but most importantly they gave approval to her principle of self-government, and they were to be supervised directly by the Holy See. Later on the successive bishop of Adelaide, Christopher Reynolds still tried to get the Sisters to follow him and when they wouldn't, banished Mary to Sydney. Fr Paul Gardiner SJ, a postulator of the Cause, always regarded this episode as worse than her excommunication, as it involved outright calumny. (A nun who falsely accused Mary to the bishop of being a drunkard, because of the brandy she was taking to deal with painful periods!) Bishop Reynolds had no right to do this, as the Rule now approved by Rome, stated they were not under the authority of the local bishop.

...But when all is said and done, the key to understanding Mary MacKillop is that she was a person of holiness. ...Yes the canonization of Mary MacKillop is very sorely needed, because we don’t need another sports star or celebrity. We need a saint.

Saint Mary was a "rebel" only in the sense that she was determined to be faithful to her vocation and to live faithfully according to the call of Christ despite the obstacles of many sinful people both inside and outside the Church. At no time was she ever a "rebel" against Christ's holy Church. Those who try to coopt her to any movement of dissent in the Church are horribly abusing the memory and example of this holy woman.

No Knowledge without Education

Here's a bit of fun with a serious point to it, which I picked up on my iGoogle media alerts. Danielle Bean, a Catholic author and mother of eight, is editorial director of Faith & Family magazine and Faith & Family Live, and she has written a blog post at the Washington Post entitled "Catholicism's scandal of ignorance". She refers to an online quiz by Pew Forum in the US. The quiz is described as follows:

How much do you know about religion?
And how do you compare with the average American? Here's your chance to find out. Take our short, 15-question quiz, and see how you do in comparison with 3,412 randomly sampled adults who were asked these and other questions in the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey. This national poll was conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life from May 19 through June 6, 2010, on landlines and cell phones, in English and Spanish. When you finish the quiz, you will be able to compare your knowledge of religion with participants in the national telephone poll. You can see how you compare with the overall population as well as with people of various religious traditions, people who attend worship services frequently or less often, men and women, and college graduates as well as those who did not attend college.
For a full analysis of the findings of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey, read the full report.

Okay, I thought, I'm game. there are 15 questions, including two US legal questions that are not hard to guess the answer to - IF you know something about the State as well as "religion"! I actually scored 100% - 15 out of 15 - putting me in the top 99% of the population (remember that the public in this case is the American public...)

There is a full analysis here of the results of the Pew Forum survey (not the online play one, but the real one). But as Danielle Bean points out, the really terrifying thing is the way practicing Catholics have answered the question regarding the doctrine of the Eucharist. This page gives a complete breakdown of the way the real survey respondents answered the 15 questions in the online survey. In regard to the question 6 ("6. Which of the following best describes the Catholic teaching about the bread and wine used for Communion? •The bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ. •The bread and wine are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.") we are told that only 40% of the American population answered correctly. Only actual Catholics answered the question correctly at a level significantly higher than this average, but even that was only 59% for "white Catholics" and 47% for "hispanic Catholics". The doctrine of transubstantiation is a defining doctrine of Catholicism. With Mrs Bean, I agree that the fact that less than two thirds of American Catholics are aware of this is a little troubling at least. Mrs Bean writes:

For me, the saddest part of the Pew Forum survey results is the abysmal ignorance of many Catholics with regard to the tenets of their own faith. Specifically, the fact that "45% of Catholics do not know that their church teaches that the bread and the wine become the body and blood of Christ" is a scandal.

This is especially pathetic because the Eucharist -- Christ's real presence under the appearance of bread and wine -- is one of the primary ways in which the Catholic Church differs from Protestant churches. Many converts to Catholicism, especially well studied ones, will tell you that it was the sacraments, and specifically the Eucharist, that drew them to the Catholic Church in the first place. God built us for union with him. We long for Christ, and it is in the sacraments that we find that union.

One of the enduring effects of the sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is that it is now definitively "not cool" to be Catholic. I don't know who the people were that responded to the Pew Forum survey, but every week I grow in confidence that those who fill the pews around me at Sunday Mass are there because they true believers.

Week after week, we come because we believe that Church is more than a social institution and a product of our times. Even if it has become a social scarlet letter, we need Jesus Christ, and we know where we will find him: In the Catholic Church. In the flesh.

Well said. There is an interesting reflection on the Pew Forum's pages:

Factors in Religious Knowledge

What factors seem to contribute to religious knowledge? Data from the survey indicate that educational attainment – how much schooling an individual has completed – is the single best predictor of religious knowledge. College graduates get nearly eight more questions right on average than do people with a high school education or less. Having taken a religion course in college is also strongly associated with higher religious knowledge.

Other factors linked with religious knowledge include reading Scripture at least once a week and talking about religion with friends and family. People who say they frequently talk about religion with friends and family get an average of roughly two more questions right than those who say they rarely or never discuss religion. People with the highest levels of religious commitment – those who say that they attend worship services at least once a week and that religion is very important in their lives – generally demonstrate higher levels of religious knowledge than those with medium or low religious commitment. Having regularly attended religious education classes or participated in a youth group as a child adds more than two questions to the average number answered correctly, compared with those who seldom or never participated in such activities. And those who attended private school score more than two questions better on average than those who attended public school when they were growing up. Interestingly, however, those who attended a private religious school score no better than those who attended a private nonreligious school.

In other words, education, education, education. If there is one thing that the canonisation of Saint Mary of the Cross should remind us, it is of the importance of education in the faith.

Weedon reports on a Seminar on Death and Resurrection

Pastor Weedon sent me this link to a post on his blog about a pastors conference he attended with a couple of very good speakers, Rev. William Cwirla ("The Art of Dying") and Prof. Jeff Gibbs ("Resurrection"). The topic certainly gets to the heart of the matter.

In his email to me, Pastor William rightly noted my fondness for N.T. Wright (mind you, I don't think Wright fully grasps what Ratzinger was saying in his book "Eschatology" on a number of points). He writes:

I remember in a Wrightish way you objected to the line "mount triumphant to the skies." [In the German funeral hymn "This body in the grave we lay"] After this presentation, checked out the German and it is not there. Rather, simply raised again in incorruption! Wright would likely be happy with that, no?

Indeed! Schütz too!

There are a number of issues that Pastor Weedon reports on that some may find suprising, for instance, prayer for the dead in Lutheranism.

The substitution of the meta-narrative that has prevailed through so much of Christianity - where "heaven" is the goal and death is just the gateway to heaven, and can stop the story without reckoning with the Appearing of our Lord and the joy of resurrection on that day - is perhaps the main culprit in the loss of prayer for the dead among us. We forget that the dead await the Resurrection - and the martyrs under the altar impatiently! "How long, O Lord?"

One of the strengths of Lutheran theology (and Anglican also, as in the case of Tom Wright), is that its best practicioners are strongly aware of the necessity of constantly callibrating their theology with the New Testament. Catholic theologians also, at their best, are aware of this necessity. As Tom Wright so brilliantly demonstrates, there are always new possibilities, fresh insights, thrown up by this process. Catholic theologians have the additional task of calibrating their theology to the ongoing tradition as well. This is a challenge all of its own, but no less capable of fruitful outcomes. Hence my comment earlier about Wright not being as successful as Ratzinger in grasping some of the authentic New Testament perspectives that actually were preserved in the on-going tradition.

Thanks, in any case, for this report, Pastor Weedon.

"Sisters" of St Joseph?

Well, it is raining buckets here in Melbourne, the birthplace of (very soon to be) Saint Mary of the Cross (aka Mary MacKillop). God must be very confused at the moment: for years we have been praying for rain, but not a few are now praying for fine weather for Sunday's festivities (see here for full details).

The Catholic Weekly (Sydney) has this picture in their 17 October edition:

At first I thought "Isn't that nice? Some Sisters of St Joseph have decided to celebrate the canonisation of their founder by donning the habit that she gave them to identify them and their mission."

Silly me. The youthfulness of the "sisters" should have been a dead give-away. (In the early years of the order, most of the members were under 30, and in fact many of them under 21. Not anymore.) In fact these "sisters" are the cast of the Mary MacKillop musical stage production, on an outing on the "Mary MacKillop" ferry in Sydney Harbour. You must agree though, that their happy smiling faces and the instant "brand" recognisability of the habit are a good advertisment for more than just the musical. (BTW, did you pick up in the Compass program on Sunday the business about the "Black-" and "Brown-Joeys" working to bury the hatchet on their ancient division - with the consideration that perhaps they might now call themselves the "Green Joeys"? Thankfully that idea went in the waste paper basket.)

Still, wouldn't it be a nice thing if on Sunday all Josephite sisters were to dust off the old habits and don them in honour of the canonisation of their founder?

Fr Fleming's new book

Fr John has written in to make us aware of his new book, Dignitas Personae Explained:

Dear Friends

My new book is now available for pre-order at http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=149

The book deals with the Church's teaching on reproductive technology and related issues. It is aimed at the intelligent layperson. [ie. all readers of Sentire Cum Ecclesia! - David]

I would be grateful if you would spread the news. It will be particularly useful to priests, doctors, nurses, students, and teachers both at High School and University/College.

Fr John

Eccentricity vs Tyranny

I am reading the excellent literary biography of C.S. Lewis by Alan Jacobs, "The Narnian: the life and imagination of C.S. Lewis". Much to recommend about this book, but I was particularly attracted to this comment:

The society that encourages its eccentrics safeguards itself against the worst excesses of tyranny.

Amen to that. May there always be a place for eccentrics (no one particular in mind...) in our society AND in the Church!

Playing with Google's Latin Translator

I have just been playing around with Google Translator's Latin translator, trying to come up with a couple of mottos for the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission. I can't say I like it's style very much. If you don't know any latin the chances are you will get very bad vocabulary choices trying to do English into Latin.

Any way, here are two I have come up with so far. Let me know how you would phrase these better:

Discrimen nullum; colloquimur cuiquam
("We're not fussy; we'll talk to anyone")

Cenare et bibere propter pacem et concordiam
("Eating and drinking our way to peace and harmony")

If you have a suggestion for "We're happy to dance with you so long as you don't mind us stepping on your toes", I reckon that could be a good motto too...

Catholic Voices

John Allen Jnr has covered (with a full interview with Austen Invereigh) a UK endeavour called "Catholic Voices", which led on the front foot with media spots during the recent Papal Visit.

Read the interview here for background, and take a look at the media segments on the Catholic Voices website. You might start with this segment where Daniel Coughlan is the "Catholic Voice" on Al Jazeera News on 16th September. This is really impressive stuff.

PR Wooden-Spoon of the Year

In case you might have been thinking about awarding the Annual Wooden Spoon for PR to the Vatican, you might take a look at this: the "No Pressure" video by Richard Curtis for the 10:10 Climate Emissions Campaign. Just Google "No Pressure" and "10:10" and you will get hundreds of internet entries on this topic, but the easiest entry point to the discussion is James Delingpole's blog at The Telegraph. I won't embed the video here - I warn you: it is NOT for the faint of heart. It's just unbelievable that anyone thought this would help their campaign.

Archbishop of Melbourne issues “Statement on Euthanasia”

Statement on Euthanasia

Thursday 7 October 2010

To the people of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne

There is a renewed push in Victoria and many other parts of Australia for euthanasia and assisted suicide to be legalised. Misplaced compassion leads some to call for euthanasia. While it is never easy facing the end of life of a loved one, we cannot support the legalisation of euthanasia however it is described.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are the opposite of care and represent the abandonment of older and dying persons. Instead, we encourage all people of goodwill, to respond to this new challenge with truth and compassion. I join the Anglican Church of Australia in affirming that our task is to protect, nurture and sustain life to the best of our ability.

Advocates of euthanasia and assisted suicide are mounting a new campaign for far-reaching change to Victoria’s laws on euthanasia and assisted suicide. If the State government were to ask the Law Reform Commission to review the Medical Treatment Act, there is a serious danger that the Commission would follow previous practice in relation to laws such as abortion and after a brief period of public consultation recommend radical change to the legislation without consultation on the proposed changes. With these laws there was little time or opportunity for public consultation, debate or reflection and the laws were introduced to the Parliament by the Government on the basis that it would not allow amendments.

Since the Northern Territory’s brief experiment with euthanasia in 1996, euthanasia advocates have introduced numerous bills into state parliaments around Australia all of which have been rejected. Why? Because when parliamentarians take the time to debate the issue fully and to consider all the consequences properly they realise that to decriminalise euthanasia and assisted suicide would threaten the lives of other vulnerable people.

The proposals if enacted would allow some people to be treated differently under the law such that their lives could be taken at their request. The impact of a law of that kind on those people who fit the description is to make them vulnerable particularly if they feel that they are a burden to others.

The experience of the Netherlands confirms just how far such a mentality can spread with pressure to increase the scope of the law so that it includes not just those with terminal illness and unrelievable suffering, but also people who suffer from depression, those who cannot make their own decisions, and even children.

As Pope Benedict reminded us recently, “the Church has always had great respect for the elderly” and the dying and this has been expressed practically in Catholic health and aged care, especially in hospice services.

As medical advances increasingly lead to a longer life for many people, we should view older people as a blessing for society rather than a problem. Each generation has much to teach the generation that follows it. We should therefore see care of the elderly as repayment of a debt of gratitude, as a part of a culture of love and care.

The Catholic community already does much to care through our network of hospices, hospitals and other services. I call on the Catholic community and people of good will to continue to care for the frail elderly, the sick and the dying, at every stage of life. I ask you to continue to journey with those who are sick and in pain, to visit them, and ensure they have appropriate care and support and pain management and most of all someone to remain close to them.

I thank those healthcare professionals and palliative care specialists, nurses, doctors and specialist, psychologists, pain management teams, pastoral carers, religious, volunteers and others who work every day to reduce psychological pain, social and spiritual suffering, in positive and life affirming ways.

It is an uplifting and inspiring experience to observe the love and care of those who work with and support the ill and the dying in their final days of life. I encourage the community to do more to support those often unseen heroes who stand in solidarity and love those who are suffering.

I ask the Parliament to put its energy and creative talents, into positive supports, rather than taking the negative path towards euthanasia or assisted suicide. I call on our parliaments to increase their support for aged care and palliative care programs.

I ask the community to continue to love and care for those who are sick and suffering rather than abandoning them to euthanasia or supporting them to suicide. Our ability to care says much about the strength of our society.

If there is a vote on euthanasia in the next term of the state Parliament, as predicted, each member will most likely be given a conscience vote. As you consider which candidate to vote for, ask them what their position is on euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Yours sincerely in Christ

ARCHBISHOP OF MELBOURNE

[Click here to download a PDF version of the statement]

Music for the Mass

Many of you will have already heard that ICEL has published the chants for the new missal on their website for all to download. This is really good stuff. They have included two chants for the Creed, and a chant (a very ancient and simple one) for the Gloria. The latter is especially significant. Our present missal has chants for everything BUT the Gloria and the Creed. That is, we have standard chants for the Kyrie, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei in the missal already. But without a chant for the Gloria, there has not been a full standard chant mass setting easily accessible for all Catholic parishes. And so they went looking for other settings that included a Gloria, non-standard settings. NOW there will at last be a common universal standardised chant setting available to all English speaking parishes throughout the world.

Another bit of news: the stuff you download from the ICEL website is just the chant melody. Great for unaccompanied chant. But most parishes will require organ accompaniment at least. AND it's on its way! The draft accompaniment is already being prepared and hopefully will be available soon.

The next step is to make sure that our parishes use these settings so that they become widely known. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is to introduce the new texts WITH the new chant settings. It is always easier to memorise a text when you sing it anyway.

Just imagine being able to go anywhere in the English speaking world and join in singing the liturgy! Just imagine being able to break into song at any mass, Sunday or weekday, with or without musical accompaniment!

You do not have a "right" to "chose your time of death"

The pro-Euthanasia lobby is inventing human rights, just as the pro-homosexual lobby is. The latter is inventing the "human right" for same-sex attracted persons to "marry", and the former is inventing a "human right" to "choose one's time of death".

If the language of "human rights" is not to become a devalued currency, we must agree that you can't just mint brand-new shiny "human rights" according to whim. The Catholic Church teaches that true "human rights" are those that arise from the dignity of what it means to be human. Of course, the question there is "what does it mean to be human?" and that is where the argument starts. It is an argument for a different time. But one thing we can say for now is that part of the definition of "human dignity" has to do with the human being as a social being, and with human community. An out-of-control libertine individualism is not good for human society and thus "my business and no-one else's" cannot be cited as a basis for a "human right".

In relation to this, I wish to draw your attention to this article in The Australian today: "Choosing one's time of death is a basic human right", by Nigel Gray (former director of the Cancer Council of Victoria). He writes:

I AM distressed by the confusion and disgruntlement surrounding the discussion of euthanasia. Even the admirable Paul Kelly gets it wrong (The Australian, September 29). He refers to euthanasia as "legalised killing", implying that those who support euthanasia want someone to do something to someone else. The word kill occurs seven times. If we take away the labels such as euthanasia, kill, murder, suicide, we can look at the issues.

I disagree very strongly. If you take out these words - which are NOT "loaded" words, or fuzzy words, but words that are clear and have a deliberate and objective meaning - THEN you in fact obscure the issues rather than clarify them.

The people who join the Dying with Dignity movement simply want to die with dignity. This ought to be possible under Victorian law, but it is not surprising that people want to be sure of getting their wishes.

To die with dignity is, I would agree, a "human right" - but in a secondary sense: ie. everyone is entitled to that "dignity" which is due to them because they are a human being in BOTH life and death. The question is: what do you mean by "dignity" in this context? Japanese warriors and Jihadist Terrorists both had/have ideas about what a "dignified" death is. We disagree with both their accounts. We disagree with Nigel Gray's too.

My wishes are also simple. I want the right to choose the place and time of my own death. I do not want to transfer the responsibility to someone else. The place will be in my own bed, with Louis Armstrong playing in the background. The time: not yet imminent.

The "someone else" who has the choice of the place and time of one's death is not a human being. Whether you believe in God or not, no human being - including oneself - has a "right" to chose when and where they will die. The very unpredictability of death is one of its greatest mysteries, but we do not have a "right" to solve that mystery by taking our own life or the life of others.

The whole thing could be much simpler and less disturbing if, for example, the law allowed the following two options. All that follows necessarily requires everyone involved to be willing participants. No one could or should be forced to participate, and the service should be free.

Ah yes. If only that difficult and disturbing thing we call "death" could be made "simpler and less disturbing"... Note that "could" and "should" are, of course, two different things.

Option one: The person (I have not said patient) presents to the nearest (willing) pharmacist a form signed and witnessed (as is any will or power of medical attorney) that requests the pharmacist to provide a lethal dose of Nembutal with instructions for use. The person goes home and takes it. At the moment, the family then has to waste the time of a practitioner to certify death and the coroner has to inquire to see that someone was not murdered.

"Waste the time of a practicioner"? "not said patient"? Is he in fact arguing for the right of any and all human beings to commit suicide whenever and for whatever reason they choose? If this it is indeed a "human right" for all human beings to decide the place and time of their death and to carry it out by their own action, does this not mean that it is immoral to try to prevent suicide?

Option two: A charitable organisation, called the Earthly Angel Service, accommodates the person's wishes. The person provides a form, signed and witnessed as above. The EAS then provides an authorised (registered and licensed) staff member who has some simple skills, and an independent witness. The EAS visitor: Slips a needle into a vein and sets up an intravenous drip. Draws up a lethal dose of morphia and slips the needle into the drip. Hands the syringe to the person. The person, not anyone else, presses the plunger of the syringe. The morphia flows and permanent sleep follows. The EAS visitor then determines that death has occurred and provides a death certificate. With such a law, no one else is required to do something to someone else.

"Earthly Angel Service"? Note that the article is headed with the by-line "EMOTIONAL terms obscure the facts of euthanasia". If this isn't "emotional", I don't know what is. Anyway, such an "angel" would be nothing other than an "Angel of Death". And what kind of "charity" would this be? Not the kind that Church understands. Not the kind of "charity" that the good Samaritan showed.

All the labels are pejorative and obscure the real issues: individual choice, no transfer of responsibility to another person (which is, after all, a tough responsibility to transfer), no bureaucracy, and no need for a terminal disease, so no need for a doctor.

As I said: Suicide as a "human right". Gray is certainly in a "gray" area here. The result would be a moral obligation on everyone to do everything we can to assist the suicidal to achieve their aims. Also note the emphasis on "choice" and "individual". We have seen this before in the abortion debate, we see it again here. Remember: since a human being is a social and communal being, "individualism" cannot provide a basis for determining true human dignity.

The reason for wanting choice is that this is one's own business, no one else's. We should not have to give reasons. It may indeed be a terminal disease and one may have consulted a doctor, or one may have gone bankrupt, or the wrong team may have won the grand final, but these are not relevant to anyone else. A personal decision, which is made as a human right, is all that is required. The necessary legislation should be simple enough.

Sorry mate. It isn't your own business. "No man is an island", and all that stuff. This is individualism taken to an extreme. It is the death of human society. Gray and his ilk are inventing a new "human right" and yes, I want him to give REASONS why he thinks suicide is a "human right".

Pilgrimage to SA: Diary entry Thursday 30th September

The morning dawned bright and sunny on Wednesday and, although it clouded over later, it remained fine. We had another slow start. I had several other points on the pilgrimage yet to make, and so Cathy decided it would be good for me to take the children out while she did the bulk of the packing up. Before leaving Tanunda, we visited the bakery and bought some bienenstich (bee-sting) cake and a apfel-streusel küchen for morning tea.

First stop on the list was the Neukirch Cemetery. This cemetery is not attached to the church building, but is about another 300 metres down the road from the Neukirch Church (is that a tautology?) out in a paddock all on its own, a kilometre or so north west of the Ebenezer Lutheran Church, north of Nuriootpa and west of Stockwell. This is where my mother's father's grandparents (my great, great grandparents, and the children's great, great, great grandparents) are buried. They had the wonderful names of Johann Heinrich Theodor Heintze and Johanna Maria Magdelena (nee Schultz). We located their grave easily enough, and picked some wild flowers to place on their grave, before a moment of prayer thanking God for their lives and praying for their eternal rest.

[caption id="attachment_4167" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Neukirch Church near Ebenezer, the church my Great, Great Grandparents attended"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4168" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The girls at the entrance to the Neukirch Cemetery where their Great, Great, Great Grandparents Heintze are buried."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4169" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Maddy and Mia at the grave of Johann Heinrich Theodor Heintze and his wife Johanna Maria Magdelena nee Schultz (my grandfather\'s grandparents) in the Neukirch Cemetery"][/caption]

Next stop was a little further to the south and west at Nain, a church just down the road west of Greenock. Here the parents of both Johann Heinrich Theodor and Johanna Maria Magdelena are buried: great, great, great (+ an extra great for the kids), grandparents Schultz (yes, with an 'L' – different family from the Schütz's) and Heinze (yes, without the 't' – that was added by their children). These were the original immigrants to South Australia on the fourth ship in Pastor Kavel's floatilla, the Skjold, which arrived in January 1839. They had originally settled in Bethany in 1842, before moving up north to this area. The Schultz's still had their original gravestone, indicating that the old man's 200th birthday had been in August this year (so he and my Great, Great, Great Grandfather Schütz were both born in 1810). The Heinze tombstone however looked newer, probably 1950's, although it indicated that Old Man Heinze had been born in 1795. It seems amazing that I can trace my family history back to the 18th Century. Again we said prayers at both gravesides, and placed some wild white irises which we had found growing on the side of the road on their graves.

[caption id="attachment_4170" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="Mia and Maddy at the grave of their Great Great Great Great Granparents Schultz in the Nain Cemetery. The Schultz\'s came from the same village in Silesia as the Heinze\'s and travelled out on the same ship in 1839"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4171" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The gravestone of Great Great Great Grandfather Friedrich Wilhelm and Auguste Wilhemine Heintze, who came to South Australia from Silesia in 1839"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4172" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The Lutheran Church at Nain, where my Great, Great, Great Grandparents Schultz and Heinze are buried"][/caption]

We headed back into town, and had lunch of bread, cheese, tomato, fritz and metwurst (washed down with a glass of Bethany white wine) before leaving Little Para Cottage. We stopped in Tanunda and visited Langmeil Church and Cemetery, where Pastor Kavel is buried. The church was open during office hours – but not when we were there – office hours finished at 12 noon. So we were not able to enter a single church during our 'pilgrimage'! This church is, however, not only one of the most significant historically in the Valley, but also one of the most beautiful, with the cemetery at the front, lining both sides of a central path leading up to the church door. Very well planned for maximum picturesqueness!

[caption id="attachment_4174" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="The entrance to Langmeil Lutheran Church in Tanunda"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4175" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="Pastor Kavel\'s grave in Langmeil cemetery in Tanunda"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4176" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="Langmeil Lutheran Church in Tanunda"][/caption]

Our next plan was to visit one more winery before finding a lookout from which to see the whole valley. We went to Rockfords, south of Bethany, which has always been a favourite. They do a beautiful "rose-style" wine called Alicante Bouchet, and a very nice aged tawny port. Heading back through Bethany, we decided to follow the unpaved track up Kaiser Stuhl, the high hill at the bottom of the valley, up which (according to a popular story which, to my annoyance, the expert historian Pastor Henry Proeve declared "spurious" in the book "The Barossa Valley: A Vision Realised") Pastor Kavel was said to have marched his congregation to await the return of the Lord and the start of the Millenium. The dispute over millennialism and the proper interpretation of Revelation 20 was at the centre of the famous split at the synod of Bethany in 1842 which resulted in Pastor Kavel and Pastor Fritsche leading their flocks in separate directions, and eventually to the "Two Churches", the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia (ELCA – Pastor Kavel) and the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia (UELCA – Pastor Fritsche). This split, in which my family ended up with the UELCA, was only healed with the formation of the united Lutheran Church of Australia in the year of my birth, 1966. It could be said that I was the first person to have been both baptised and ordained in the LCA, although strictly speaking, I was baptised a month or two before the union was officially declared and celebrated.

[caption id="attachment_4177" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="Rockford\'s Winery"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4178" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The view of Tanunda and the Barossa Valley from Kaiser Stuhl"][/caption]

Anyway, we went up the hill, which afforded the most magnificent views of the valley, much better than the better known view from Mengler's Hill slightly to the north. However the latter has a paved road and viewing area at the top, which means it is much more accessible. From here you can see why the Barossa Valley IS a true valley, as you can see the circle of hills all around the flat in which Tanunda and Nuriootpa are central. We went next to Mengler's Hill, where there is a memorial to the German Settlers and to their faith, before leaving the Valley and heading over the hills to Flaxman's Valley, where Great, Great, Great Grandpa Schütz settled and lived out his life to 1900.

[caption id="attachment_4179" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Mia and Maddy on Mengler\'s Hill with the Barossa Valley in the background"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4180" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The Memorial to the Barossa Pioneers on Mengler\'s Hill. Note the text and its thankfulness to God."][/caption]

We were able to locate the farmhouse where Great, Great, Great Grandpa Johann Gottfried built his home and from which his sons set out to make a new life for themselves much further north at Point Pass. The owner of the farm was in the yard, and he confirmed that this was indeed the original Schütz holding. He was happy for us to take pictures of the farm, but didn't invite us in, so we turned around and headed for Eden Valley, home of the best Barossa Reislings (although not strictly Barossa) and where my ancestor is buried with his wife in the cemetery of St Petri Church. Again we laid fresh wild irises on his grave and sang "Happy Birthday dear Johann Gottlieb" for his 200th Birthday coming up.

[caption id="attachment_4181" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The property in Flaxmans Valley where Great Great Great Grandpa Schütz settled in 1855"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4182" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="St Petri Lutheran Church Eden Valley - which wasn't J.G.'s parish, even though it is closest to his homestead. He was in fact a life member of Bethany Lutheran Church, and his wife is buried in the Bethany Pioneers Cemetery. Unfortunately I didn't know that when we were in Bethany, and so we drove right past the cemetery where Great Great Great Grandma is buried. Next time..."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4183" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="David, Maddy and Mia at Great Great Great Grandpa Schütz\'s grave in the St Petri Cemetery in Eden Valley"][/caption]

Matthias asked what was on the bronze plaque set in front of his tombstone, and it is a literal translation of the German poem on his tombstone.

Here rests in God
J.G. Schütz [note the umlauts!]
born 13 Oct. 1810
in Grünberg Silesia
died 10 Nov. 1900
At the age of 90 years

Rich in days you left us
Weary of life, slipped into its ending,
Life on earth brought little joy,
Heavenwards your thoughts were tending.
In Heaven forever in the Lord made whole
In life ever trusted to console.

[caption id="attachment_4184" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="The view of St Petri Church at Eden Valley from GGG Grandpa Schütz\'s grave"][/caption]

From there we headed down to Springton, where there is the famous "Herbig Tree". The Herbigs, a family of 16 surviving children, converted this ancient hollow gumtree into their home for five years between 1855 and 1860. Old Vater Herbig had been the tailor in the same town that my ancestor came from, Grünberg in Silesia, and they had come out in 1855 on the same boat as he did, the Wilhemine. Yes, we all have boat people and refugees in our ancestory!

[caption id="attachment_4185" align="aligncenter" width="360" caption="The Herbig Family lived in this tree from 1855-1860"][/caption]

That was the end of our 'pilgrimage' properly speaking, as we headed back into Adelaide through Williamstown and Gawler. It has been a remarkable trip, and we hope to top it off tomorrow with a brief visit to Hahndorf, where my grandfather's grandfather's grandfather on my father's side brought his family in his old age and where he died in 1839. Unfortunately we have no idea where he was buried, so no more graveside visits, although I do know where he lived, as records show the land that he purchased.

[Post Script: We spent the next two nights in Adelaide with a friend of Cathy's. I took the children to the Adventure Playground at St Kilda (nb. St Kilda in Adelaide has only one similarity with St Kilda in Melbourne - it is near the water).

On Friday we drove to Pinnaroo (my home town) via Hahndorf. We saw the property which was originally owned by my Great Great Great GREAT Grandfather Pfeiffer, who came out on Captain Hahn's ship, The Zebra, in 1839, with his wife, son and young grandchildren. Unfortunately he and his wife both died in the cold winter of 1839 when the vegetable crop failed - basically of malnourishment and pneumonia. We don't know where they are buried. His son - my Great, Great, Great Grandpa Pfeiffer - is, in fact, buried in the Immanuel Lutheran Cemetery in Point Pass - something I didn't know when we were actually there visiting the other Great, Greats. Damn. Next time.

Finally we spent two nights in Pinnaroo at my parents' home for the the wedding of my oldest neice. My girls both said they want "a wedding like that, Dad". Very reluctantly we headed home on Sunday because we all had either work and school on Monday.]

Pilgrimage to SA: Diary entry Wednesday 29th September (St Michael's Day)

Yesterday, Tuesday, was a slow start. Our accommodation is really very pleasant. Anyone travelling to the Barossa would do well to try to book "Little Para Cottage" on 5 Para Road, Tanunda. Wendy, the proprietor, works at the Faith Lutheran College – and there was a bottle of Mengler View Shiraz waiting for us when we arrived (it's produced by the kids at the college, would you believe!). The price is right, although it will not suit larger families, as there are only a double bed and a single bed in the bedroom (one of), so we added a fold out bed for Mia. The kitchen lounge room is very comfortable. There's no open fire, but the faux-log fire electric heater gives the right impression without the mess (or, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, the smell). It is quiet and private and we enjoyed the morning just pottering around. While Cathy and the kids had bacon and eggs for breakfast (cook your own, not provided), I had fried blud/ricewurst on toast. I couldn't convince any other member of my family to taste it. It was not exactly like we used to make it on the farm in Pinnaroo, but close enough to evoke childhood memories.

I smoked my pipe on the veranda (reading an hilariously funny book "The Va Dinci Cod", which I bought for $3 at a Lion's Club second hand book store in Adelaide with Fraser), but it was dreadfully cold (God knows how cold it must have been in Melbourne) and drizzly. The showers would be on and off all day, interspersed with sunshine, and that gave the Barossa an extra special "feel" and gleen. We then set off to walk up and down the main street of Tanunda – the kids wanted to shop. Whenever we saw a church coming up I said to the kids "Guess what kind!" and they answered in chorus "Lutheran!". There are no less than FOUR Lutheran churches in this little town, which shows not just that there were a lot of Lutherans in the area, but also their history of bickering. One of the churches, "Tabor" in the main street, was originally a "Free Evangelical Lutheran Church". As the sign says on the outside, it was frequented by Germans who were not part of the original "Old Lutheran" sect that my fore-fathers were and who had no truck with some of the more strict ways of the majority sect.

[Tabor Lutheran Church in Tanunda, one of the four Lutheran Churches in this town. This one was a "Free" Lutheran Church, that is, they did not subscribe to the funny ideas of Kavel and Fritsche's "Old Lutherans". Not "our mob"!"]

We went into the Museum in the main street that has a very good display on the history of the early settlers, including a couple of rooms done up as Lutheran Churches (given that most Lutheran Churches in the area are shut, this gave a good view of how it would have looked).

[caption id="attachment_4250" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The excellent little Museum in Tanunda - don\'t miss it if you are travelling through the Barossa!"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4155" align="aligncenter" width="480" caption="A fairly good reproduction of a traditional Lutheran Church in a small room in the Museum in Tanunda"][/caption]

We had lunch at the Tanunda Bakery and Wursthaus, where I bought a slice of Jagerbraten, a kind of metwurst made by stuffing a porkbelly with sausage and then roasting it. Yummy! After lunch, we hopped in the car and drove north to Eudunda and then to Point Pass, where all the sons of Great, Great, Great Grandpa Johann Gottlieb moved from their original settlement in Flaxman's Valley. It is a good distance, about 50km, and we did most of the journey along the gravel road that leads north from Stockwell to St Kitts and then to Eudunda. As this road travels along a central ridge of hills it afforded us a splendid view of the surrounding countryside. We drove through Eudunda and up on to Point Pass, arriving at the splendidly crowned Immanuel Lutheran Church with its copper steeple (which shines bright in the sunshine). Behind this church, in which my Grandfather played one of only three surviving Klempke pipe organs (another was in my old parish at Frankston) while my dad would work the hand operated bellows, is the cemetery. If my children had any lingering doubts concerning the size of their family, the names on a great number of tombstones put that firmly to rest. We first located the grave where I buried my Grandfather about 16 years ago. He is buried with his first wife, my grandmother who died in 1953 and whom I never knew, and with his second wife, who was my "grandma". She died just as I was leaving for Constantinople in 2007 and so I had never been able to visit her grave before. We said an "Our Father" together and prayed for their repose. The children had known step-Great Grandma, and so this had some meaning for them also. Directly behind their grave is the grave of Grandpa's parents, and further back in the cemetery is the grave of his grandparents – my Great, Great grandfather was born in Silesia in 1845 and came out with his father, Johann Gottfried Schütz in 1855.

[caption id="attachment_4160" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Immanuel Lutheran Church at Point Pass, with its copper steeple. My Grandfather played the organ in this church."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4268" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="My Grandfather\'s grave at Point Pass. I officiated at his burial in 1995. He is buried with my Grandmother Clara who died when my father was 12 years old, and his second wife, Grandma Lorna, whom my children were privileged to know before she died in 2007."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4158" align="aligncenter" width="480" caption="Mia and Maddy at the grave of their Great Great Grandparents Gustav Herman and Ernestine Emilie Schutz (note the umlauts have been dropped!) at Immanuel Cemetery in Point Pass"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4159" align="aligncenter" width="480" caption="The grave of my Great Great Grandparents Carl Heinrich and Maria Elisabeth Schütz at the Immanuel Cemetery in Point Pass. Carl moved to Point Pass with his brothers from Eden Valley where his father had settled."][/caption]

Unfortunately, the church was locked and none of the neighbours had a key, so we got back into our car and drove out to find my father's original home (within view of the cemetery itself). We drove past the original Immanuel College building – now a bed and breakfast.

[caption id="attachment_4161" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The original Immanuel College at Point Pass. It is now a bed and breakfast."][/caption]

I had spent some time with my father on the phone and with Google maps to find the exact locations of his house, and the houses of my grandfather's twin brother nearby. First we drove up a rather weatherworn track to get to their old shearing shed, a thatched log arrangement now tumbling down, but still standing. [Actually since writing this, I discovered that I had the information wrong: the thatched building belonged to my grandfather's twin brother; my grandfather's shed was the tin one on the other side of the road. Anyway, the thatched building looked more historic!]

[caption id="attachment_4162" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Mia and I in front of my great uncles old shearing shed at Point Pass."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4257" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="My Grandfather's shed was on the other side of the road, and rather more characteristic of his building style..."][/caption]

Heading back towards the homestead, we took pictures from the hill looking down at the house, and lamented that we couldn't go in and have a look.

[caption id="attachment_4163" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Me with my Great Grandfather\'s farm house at Point Pass in the background. My Grandfather worked this land with his horse teams."][/caption]

But I heard the sound of chainsaw nearby and saw a man and his young son chopping up a tree that had fallen over a fence. Taking a guess, I drove down to them, and pulled up and introduced myself: "Hi! I'm David Schütz and I would guess that you must be Bruce Schütz?" Sure enough, it was my second cousin, who lives in a third house on the property, with his sixth son Gary. He happily gave us permission to go up to my father's old home, which he now owns again and is currently renovating as a home for his son who is getting married in the near future. He told us that the house was open and invited us to let ourselves in to have a look.

[caption id="attachment_4164" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="We met up with my second cousin Bruce Schutz and his sixth son Gary"][/caption]

This was unexpected! I had never even been on the property before, and now I could see where Dad, and his father, and his father before him had once lived. They are treating it for salt-damp before repainting the interior, and have put a new roof on and repainted the exterior. Many of the old farm buildings which my great-grandfather and grandfather built are still standing – although Bruce pointed out that some of the sheds have been badly damaged by storms and will need to come down.

[caption id="attachment_4166" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The rear view of the home my father grew up in at Point Pass"][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_4165" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="The front view of the home built by my great grandfather and in which my father grew up at Point Pass"][/caption]

After spending an hour or so on the property (Bruce and Gary came up to show us around a bit more), we drove home through Eudunda, seeing where my father went to school, and then home via Kapunda and Nuriootpa. A good meal of pasta, and again we were in bed early.