Tony Abbott and the God question
December 5th, 2009 by Mark Bahnisch | Published in Culture, Media, Politics, Religion, Sociology | 88 Comments
The first few days of Tony Abbott’s leadership have seen a concerted effort by the conservative commentariat to decry any criticism of his reactionary policies on women’s rights and social issues as ‘anti-Catholic’.
A number of points need making about this trope:
(a) Abbott is, of course, not the first federal leader of the Liberal party to be a Catholic. Sectarianism was definitely a factor in the largely Protestant and bourgeois parties of the centre right in the past, and there may be residual effects within the Liberal party itself. It’s worth remembering that Malcolm Turnbull is a Catholic, and this issue (as far as I can recall) was never highlighted during his leadership.
However, Tony Abbott is the first leader to be associated with a particular style of political Catholicism – one which, some decades ago, would have been much more closely associated with the DLP (and indeed still has influence within various ALP right factions and unions). Outside the circles around Cardinal George Pell this sort of neo-grouper politics has little influence in Australian Catholicism itself. Australian Catholics are less unified politically than in the days of sharper religious and political cleavages, and while social justice Catholicism is also a living tradition, my own view is that the post Vatican II Catholic Church is much less politicised with respect to the broader community. That holds less for those who are identified with Pope Benedict’s ‘reform of the reform’, but here, there is often a significant disjunction between Papal social teaching in some areas and an ensemble of conservative social and political positions held by the Pontiff’s Antipodean warriors.
In short, the interface of religion and politics has itself been affected by a secularisation within Australian culture, which is powerfully related to a dissolution of modernist political battle lines.
(b) This fracturing of a largely unitary theological and political constellation is reflected in, and in turn, influenced by a different way of seeing the imperatives of religion for acting within culture. Guy Rundle has summed it up thus:
There are three dominant ideas of God in Christianity at the moment. Leaving aside literal protestant fundamentalists, the division between the other two runs right through the middle of the Roman Catholic church. On the one side are those who believe that God may be a real entity, but cannot be expressed in human terms — and consequently the idea that God might have firm views on homosexuality, condoms, evolution, traditional aboriginal culture etc is a category error. On the other is the idea that God has a more knowable form with whom a dialogue of sorts is possible — if not exactly a Grandpa in the Sky, God can be thought of in terms sufficiently assimilable to humanity to make the pronoun “He” a meaningful one.
The division is not around the unique divinity of Jesus Christ, but around whether the creation of a specific moral and political order is a business of humans left to do it by themselves, or one in which God’s will and law can be interpreted and acted on.
Our society and politics is overwhelmingly of the first belief. It is a widespread belief that underlies the Australian polity as a humanist one. Tony Abbott is part of the second formation, and it is perfectly legitimate to pin him to the wall on it.
Writing as a Catholic committed to a left wing politics, I would want to complicate that a little – for instance, the question of the Divine and personhood is more complex – but it’s an accurate social diagnosis. I’d also observe in passing that the more universalist perspective on the Divine is also one that Joe Hockey made his own (in a recent speech which is better thought through than most of its detractors grant). However, I’d agree with Rundle’s conclusion – and add to it the point that targeting Abbott as if he were solely representative of Catholicism or God is both wrong and politically counter-productive. It’s, in fact, the mirror image of his own self-conception.
(c) Rundle also raises the spectre of right wing ressentiment and victimology in an interesting discussion of the populist politics of the right. Again, it’s worth remembering that Tony Abbott and the conservative commentariat are not the ‘representatives’ of Catholics in the pews (or the much greater number who kneel in pews only very occasionally, if at all); and that the much taunted Liberal ‘base’ is in one sense correct in assuming the rhetorical position of victimised minority – the minority bit.
I would certainly agree that the Catholic vote if fairly split. From experience some Catholics still feel comforatable with the old ALP right style politics but are increasingly looking elsewhere as the ALP has become beholden to politically correct secular and at times anti religious politics. Other Catholics who feel disillusioned with the ALP’s move to embrace aggressive secularism may move to the Liberals but remain uncomfortable with some aspects of policy such as Iraq, refugees etc. For many Cathoics I believe there is no longer a clear choice. Perhaps what is needed is a strong grouping committed to broadly left social justice policies supported by many Catholics whilst maintaining a committment to respecting the family and a consistent ethic of life. I dream of an anti war, anti capital punishment, anti abortion, pro social justice, pro non violence, pro equality part based not around religion but one which will attract both religious and non religious people who believe in true justice.
Spana, there are various Catholic groups which hold to something similar to what you’re describing (and there are those which dissent from the line on the right to choose to terminate pregnancy) – it’s not dissimilar to the sort of position held by many associated with various diocesan Social Justice Commissions, for instance, and other forms of work and activism associated with religious orders and parishes, as well as (now somewhat declining) movements like Young Christian Workers.
However, there are a few points here:
(a) I should have added – but didn’t want to make the post too long – that there are also echoes of the Catholic Action debates about the various roles and spheres of influence of the clergy and the laity. Abbott, in a way, holds to the pre-Vatican II movement position (which, as we know, was not accepted by the majority of the Australian episcopate) whereby politicians effectively seek to translate church positions into the secular realm with the advice of certain members of the hierarchy. This take was really nixed by Vatican II, but has reared its head – in a somewhat confused fashion – again with the ‘culture wars’, and the interventions in electoral politics in America since the early 2000s;
(b) If one accepts that it is *not* the role of the hierarchy to be involved in politics, then it raises a further set of questions about how individual Catholic activists and lay church groups should interface with the political realm;
(c) Many such social justice groupings themselves would see their role as more providing a space to discuss and lobby on certain issues (eg around refugee rights) – which then leads to the question of whether they are trying to inform consciences and action on a cohesive Catholic body of thought about questions of government and ethics or whether it’s more a matter of highlighting particular questions (again, refugee or Indigenous rights are good examples) and referring them back to Catholic social teaching;
(d) I’d also observe that the degree to which a ‘pro-life’ stand is either held or emphasised varies greatly – in some dioceses, it’s little emphasised, and there are many active Catholics who are in disagreement on this question, and not just Catholic feminists (of whom there are a lot; and many of whom are nuns or sisters).
On the theological issues the question of Christian engagement in politics there is a further stance which can claim substantive roots in the Christian tradition which would say that our understanding of the character of God, to the extent that we can speak of God is grounded in the character, practice and teaching of Jesus.
This orientation is found strongly in the Radical Reformation, its predecessors and successors, particularly in the peace church tradition. Here there is a critique and of the Christendom settlement that still bedevils much of the debate about the role of the church in politics in the Catholic tradition. There is traceable in this tradition from its emergence in the early 16th century, the beginnings of the basis for a secular/pluralist social order in which Christians can be active in giving shape to debates and practices around social issues.
Indeed, Doug, and again, there are some parallels between this tradition and various Catholic theological appproaches – including but not limited to one stream of the foundations of liberation theology and activism in Jurgen Moltmann’s Eschatology of Hope, its predecessors and parallels in Catholic theological and political thought.
Mark – it’s simply not true that there are sizeable groups within the Catholic church who promote the idea of choice in the matter of ‘termination’. There is no wriggle room here. The teaching is clear. I’m not sure what your personal position is but Catholics who cannot reconcile their conscience in this matter should look elsewhere. Plenty have.
holly, I wasn’t saying ‘sizeable’, but there certainly are Catholics who dissent on this teaching. That’s true, whether one likes it or not. And it’s also true that in many areas – for instance, the Brisbane archdiocese, not much is made of the whole thing. Having said all that, I don’t think that’s central to the sort of issues I want to discuss in the post, and consequently, on this thread.
Totally agree Holly. Tha vast, vast majority of Catholics are pro life. Some may be perhaps more women focussed and express their opposition to abortion in less right and wrong term but nearly all Catholics in my experience are at their core pro life.
Also, it is interesting how these attacks on Abbott have not been directed at Rudd who as far as I know is against human cloning research and abortion as well. I would suspect that Rudd and Abbott share many views.
My recollection, Spana, is that Rudd voted in favour of at least some of the questions that Abbott was very much identified with in the Howard years – ie overturning the ban on the morning after pill.
However, there is a question there. Partly Rudd is insulated from secularist criticism by having left Catholicism to become an Anglican (a church which is hardly identified as a body – Sydney evangelicals aside – with any strong stands on these questions), and also because I think, in general, his views are reconcilable with either Rundle’s humanist stance or a more broad separation of church and state perspective.
He certainly has much more conservative social beliefs than Malcolm Turnbull, but he’s not alone there among the ALP right. However, I doubt he’d follow Abbott into the far reaches of ‘convenant marriage’ etc, and unlike Abbott, he doesn’t want to see his personal views become or shape the law of the land.
“and unlike Abbott, he doesn’t want to see his personal views become or shape the law of the land.”
Which is why people aren’t much fussed about Rudd’s religious beliefs, or those of most other politicians. For me, the key point isn’t Abbott’s Catholicism, it’s the fact that, as you say Mark, he wants those views enshrined in law.
Fine. Do you seriously believe that Rudd’s policy is not influenced by his religious beliefs? Or is it okay to be influenced by beliefs if they agree with yours and not okay for Abbott to be influenced by beliefs because they are different from yours. This is the left’s problems. Martin Luther King was motivated by religion. Does the left attack him because of it? He did what he did because of God. But the left ignores this. How about Ghandi? No. According to the left you can believe in God as long as your values are like ours. If nor you are the Taliban.
I have great difficulties with Guy’s trifecta (or maybe trilogy) of Christian differentiation. I fear that an objective of the demonisation of Abbott is to obscure two things – Labor conservatism in general and Rudd’s position in particular. How better to do that than to cry wolf while devouring the sheep? In any event to an outsider like me Rudd’s political/theological position appears to be similar to Abbott’s. Even if that is not the case and the distinction Mark borrows from Guy to distinguish Rudd from Abbott is valid, why not use the approach to also examine Kristina Keneally and paint her as an enemy of ‘liberalism’ and leftism and campaign too against her?
I think the difference is that Rudd may and does hold views that I disagree with(I am very lapsed Catholic)he wont try to legislate them in to law,were as Abbott would,I do not trust him in any way shape or form.
He is from what I can gather an acolyte of the old leader of the DLP,a reactionary group if ever there was one Santamaria.
I also don’t want Pell anywhere near power,or influencing it,all Abbott is going to to is drag us back to the discredited Howard years
Interesting post, Mark. As noted several times when discussion of Tony Abbott comes up, the objection to Tony Abbott is not that he’s a Catholic. I really couldn’t care less. It’s how it informs his policy views that is appalling.
On the broader question of the interface between the Catholic hierarchy and nation-states, I’m interested in this comment:
While Abbott may be very much the exception in Australia, I got the impression that in some developing Catholic majority countries that bishops directly involve themselves in politics in the manner you describe – for good (opposing some rather regimes) and ill (condoms in Africa). Or is this a mistaken view?
Is Kevin Rudd’s attitude to marriage quality representative of the broader Labor party?
Marriage EQUALITY.
Sorry. Stupid iPhone control freakery. I get some beauties sometime.
Spana, can you find an instance in which Rudd has brought in any legislation that has attmpted to control peoples’ private lives in a way that fits in with his religious beliefs?
I think, in part, Rob, it’s that civil society (of the Indigenous, rather than NGO variety) is weaker in many developing countries and Catholic pronouncements therefore both stand out more and there’s more at stake for the Bishops making them (cf the history of some of the episcopal opposition to both Mugabe’s and the South African apartheid regime, for instance).
There’s also usually a split either between or within national Bishops’ conferences on more progressive and more conservative emphases.
FWIW, the recent Synod of Africa featured strong views on re-orienting Catholic teaching towards issues of justice – and that was also a factor in forming part of the majority for Ratzinger in the Conclave and some of his statements on issues such as nuclear weapons, capitalism, peace, etc. since he became Pope Benedict.
In truth, there’s a lot of confusion in the Catholic position on politics. It tends to vary a lot between countries with a traditional Catholic majority (ie Italy, Spain, Poland) and those with a more pluralist ethos – and there are inflexions where Catholicism was once strong but anti-clerical cultures have been prominent (ie France). This goes way back, and factored into the Vatican II statements on the laity and religious freedom, which were driven by French and American bishops and theologians respectively.
John Ryan and Fine. Any religious person is influenced by their faith. rudd’s influence may be in the form of foreign policy, human rights, social justice, refugees. I don’t know specifically. There is no difference between that and Abbott having values based on his views. I believe Rudd voted against human cloning and experimenation. Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure he did. So yes, I would imagine this was a direct link to his faith. So what anyway. Atheists may have a world view which leads them to a political opinion. It is not an issue. As long as they are democratically elected it is irrelevent if one’s views are influenced by Catholicism, atheis, Marxism or whatever.
@15 and @16 – furiously balancing, I suspect the Labor party and movement is split on marriage equality (and not evenly according to factional alignments, though the left would be near unanimous, I’d have thought). Rudd’s position is part of an unstable compromise under constant pressure.
How confused are you, Spana. You don’t know in what way Rudd’s religious belief has influenced his policy decisions, but you just know it does.
And you till haven’t answered my question, which was quite specific.
Thank you, Mark. The issue is an area where I do think Rudd’s religious beliefs impact on the private lives of many Australians. It’s my understanding that a majority of the Australian population are in favour of marriage equality.
I did answer your question I think. I thought you asked for an example. I thought Rudd voted against human embryo cloning.
@22, I think it’s more complex than that, furious balancing, because the minority who oppose it is bigger within the Labor party than within the general population. There’s always the element of electoral calculation too with these sorts of things for Labor – they’re likely to lose votes, while those who support marriage equality are probably already voting Labor either directly of through preferences. That’s strengthened when the Liberals aren’t liberal. So I’m not at all sure that a leader without Rudd’s religious beliefs would act differently.
Anna Bligh’s lack of religious beliefs hasn’t stopped her being an epic FAIL on abortion law reform in Queensland, for instance.
It’s more a combination of the Catholic right in the party and unions and a conservative approach to the electoral calculus.
By the way, Mark, I also should have acknowledged your point about the incorrect assumption that Tony Abbott’s interpretation of the “Catholic” view on abortion or anything else is the last word on the matter.
I can’t believe no-one’s mentioned the Irish (apologies if they have). I grew up Catholic, but as I’ve aged, I’ve realised much of the ‘culture’ experienced as a young fella was not so much Roman Catholic, as Irish. In a political sense, this culture was a sentimental, romantic strain of anti-authoritarianism, republicanism and social democracy. If my old uncles and great uncle were still alive, they would dismiss Abbott as a traitor to the cause. He’s a friend of the bourgeoisie, a monarchist and a capitalist. His is an intellectual, Jesuiat Catholicism, not the Social Catholicism of the Marist brothers, who educated me. That’s the disconnect for me, in relation not just to Abbott but to all the other right-wing Catholics now dominating Australian politics.
And so, having tried to twist Anna’s Women thread into a discussion about abortion, Spana now tries to twist Mark’s Abbott thread into a discussion about Rudd.
Fortuantely Spana’s debating skillz are pretty average.
Erm, ‘fortunately’.
*cough*
Do you have something aganst me Mr Pavlov? If we are discussing the religiosity of the opposition leader isn’t the PM and his religion also relevent? It seems like you are just having a go at me because my opinion may be different than yours. Debate the issues, don’t attack the person. I’m not trying to twist this thread. It seems your parameters for debate are very very very narrow. What happens in the real world is the conversation brached out? Get all upset do we? Some people on here are way too sensitive!
You are right, Spana. Mr Pavlov has totally got his kit in a twist just merely because the conversation slightly brached out a little.
Please, Mr Pavlov, keep to the topic of discussion!
*Squares shoulders*
*Attempts to deepen voice to a manly register*
*Notices panties are in a bunch, and realises that the whole male impersonator thing is a doomed enterprise*
Since you brought it up, Spana (and you seem sufficiently inexperienced in these sorts of blogversations not to have cottoned on yet that (a) ‘Rudd is worse’ doesn’t actually constitute an argument, just a tatty ol’ smokescreen, or that (b) some of us are aware of more than two possible positions to take on any given issue, as represented by the two dominant political parties), I’ve never been too keen on Rudd’s religiosity either.
But the difference, as several people have pointed out, is that Abbott has a form sheet as long as your arm for active attempts to change government policy on the basis of his religious beliefs. And Rudd does not.
Er … I don’t think liberation theology will catch on with Abbott. They’re socialists, usually Marxist and the Pope don’t like em.
The Greens and other secular groups are advocating population control through contraception and women’s education as a vital step in reducing our carbon emissions. Where do left-wing Catholics stand on this issue?
But Abbott is representative of the vast majority of the Catholic hierarchy in Australia. Abbott is the Gerry Gee to Pell’s Ron Blaskett (Melbourne reference, look it up, foreign barbarians).
The official church is a great big megaphone. Abbott has been given a long lend of it. And he is using that megaphone to sure up his position in the political Right.
It remains to be seen whether this megaphone is useful in electoral politics. My guess is that it isn’t.
Where, how, who in the Church (other than Pell) has given Abbott a ‘megaphone’?
I thought the World Youth conference in Sydney was the perfect example of the Catholic hierachy and the ALP cosying up—Rudd was given an excellent platform to sell himself—so far I don’t see the RC bishops giving the same opportunity to a mere leader of the Opposition.
This is very true. Abbott is Anglo-Catholic, his father was a British migrant. People with Southern & Eastern European Catholic heritage ignore this at there peril.
I thought it was a shallow analysis, but one perfectly in keeping with the beliefs of someone who has come from latent ‘Mainline’ Protestantism (a cultural tendency I gather G. Rundle shares with myself.)
Rundle confuses a high-lit knowledge of religiosity with the religious community, IMO. That’s better than falling back on ‘opiate of the masses’ bromides, I suppose; it’s just no substitute for an education about Christianity and its role in the real world.
@34 -
Absolutely untrue, Katz.
Don’t be misled by the view from Melbourne.
The chair of the Australian Bishops’ Conference is the Archbishop of Adelaide. Much to George Pell’s chagrin.
Pell only has the Archbishops of Melbourne and Perth in support of his hard line. You should have a look around his own province (in church terms) of New South Wales and see how much opposition there is to him. And, indeed, he’s been a total FAIL in the Sydney Archdiocese in imposing his line. He should have stayed in Melbourne, where at least he had the Mannix tradition to work with. Unworthy as he is.
In his own bailiwick, his influence has proved to be far less than his juridical power.
He’s a deeply divisive, and isolated figure, and is about to be kicked upstairs to a meaningless sinecure at the Vatican to get him out of the country.
I think Pell is really just an American style ‘Protestant’ Catholic, not an anti-castle Irish rebel like Mannix.
We shouldn’t confuse any lingering nineteen sixties DLP/NCC culture with what Mannix was truly about (Arthur Calwell was always adament that the Melbourne Catholic bishops were of the people, thanks to Mannix, while the Sydney hierarchy were a bunch of Vatican suckups—the notion that Pell doesn’t fit in with the ermine craving Sydney culture surprises me.)
Nickws, I said that he had the Mannix tradition to work with, *and* that he was unworthy of it.
Just clarifying… but there’s no doubt Pell himself sees himself as Mannix’ spiritual successor. I think anyone who’s studied Mannix’ career would disagree.
Note also, that in a range of prayers that Pell would be familiar with, he would accept the descriptor “non meis meritis”, so I’m sure, in all charity, he wouldn’t want to compare himself, as a lamentable sinner (as am I) with the sainted Doctor Mannix.
Ps – Pell was an imposition on Sydney. Because it was the only way he could respectably become a Cardinal.
The Sydney diocese was inclined to be a lot more laissez faire, and rather haphazardly implementing Vatican II (as opposed to Brisbane and Adelaide, where it was enthusiastically applied, on the whole) compared to Melbourne which was more polarised. But, for whatever reason, Pell is a bad fit with the culture of most of his priests and people in Sydney.
Mark,
What effect would the always flowing into Sydney, immigrant population make? Surely a constant bolstering on the pews with very conservative parishioners can’t have hurt his base.
Spana appears to think the concept of God was invented to retroactively justify his prejudices while Mark B appears to think that the concept of God was invented to give John Donne an excuse to write the greatest sermon ever in the English language. “No man is an island…”
I don’t believe in god(s) m’self but I certainly respect who have thought their beliefs through to the point where they understand the medium is not the message.
NB: This subset certainly does not include you Spanner. But I do feel some Christian sympathy for your poor knees. All that bending and jerking.
Y’know, in the context of this post and resultant thread, I reckon it’s well revisiting in it entirety that absolutely stunning piece of prose by John Donne.
“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were.
Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…”
Read it out aloud to realise what brilliant prose stylist the bloke was.
And to realise how we all carry a spark of the divine in us and how organised hierarchal belief systems spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to snuff out that spark.
Exhibit A: Spana – someone who professes to be a believer yet displays no appreciation or even awareness of original Christianity’s killer apps – starting with hope, charity, building open source communities and stirring the shit out of the established order.
Also a killer logo never hurts either. Christianity has probably the best such logo ever. An imperial execution instrument that can be rendered in two lines.
Then along came fucking Paul of Tarsus who injected his own fucked up sex life into the New Testament, making it quite literally gospel for any pushy bloke who ever had the piss taken out of him by a smarter and funny woman.
Again Spana is exhibit A for this point. Heavy, graceless and totally devoid of fun or charm. If Jesus Christ was around now he’d so totally not to want party with you.
I leave you with a piece of music that, despite (or perhaps even more because of) its opening lines, is I reckon as really infused in its own way with the same spark of the divine that Cap’n Jack Donne also used to set fire to his words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxygqSTO1lQ
..but not mine…
And yes I do realise how I fucked up the punchline to para 2 @41. I’m repenting like mad, baby.
Time to steal a valium from a passed out Indochine mini film mogul.
So far as electoral politics are concerned, who cares about any other church megaphone besides Pell’s?
Most punters couldn’t name an Australian Bishop other than Pell.
Yes, Pell is a divisive figure within the Australian hierarchy. But Pell got the hat and Pell is willing and able to play media politics.
Pell’s views and Abbott’s views are almost perfectly consonant.
(In any case, think about the metaphor of a ventriloquist’s dummy using a megaphone — it’s funny!)
Is that a reasonable synthesis of what you, John Donne and Mark are saying Nabs? :-)
Would not be surprised to see Abbott take to the ring with Danny Green, as a means of self promotion.
This would give new meaning to the term “boxing the Jesuit”.
Mark, if the cardinal moves to Rome, the speculation both within the church and in The Australian has him going to head up the Congregation for Bishops.If this indeed proves to be the case, it can hardly be dismissed, as you’ve done, as a case of being “kicked upstairs to a meaningless sinecure”. Rather, it would make him an immensely powerful person in shaping the Catholic episcopate worldwide, with an influence likely to last not just through the present reign but for at least the next 20 to 30 years. We also need to bear in mind that the Roman tradition is for an incoming pope to leave his predecessors’ appointees in place for at least a year after his election.On any reckoning, that would make Dr Pell a far more potent prelate than he is at present.
Sure, Christopher, but that’s just speculation. There’s other speculation about a meaningless sinecure!
I’m not happy with Rundle’s understanding of Christians-and-politics either. Of course, he might class me as the ‘literal protestant fundamentalist’ of whom he says nothing. The Creeds are theistic, and Christian interventions in the world — evangelism, politics, prayer, poverty relief or whatever — reflect the Divine intervention in Christ. (Oh, IANAT; this is off the top of my head). So I’m not convinced that there are loads of Christians out there who think that God’s thoughts on topic X are unknowable.
The questions I’m still working on are: Given that Biblical view of government is that it’s primarily an agent of justice and protector of the weak, where should I apply political pressure (votes, letters, etc)? If Christian morality (for want of a better term) is the best way for human beings to live, but my society doesn’t want to live that way, how much time do I spend attempting to move the society via political means, as opposed to spiritual ones? There are a range of answers that Christians take on these, from a kind of Christian Sharia law to a refusal to vote, and I don’t think Rundle knows much about it. Abbott seems to be at the Sharia end of the spectrum; Turnbull and Rudd far less so.
“Would not be surprised to see Abbott take to the ring with Danny Green, as a means of self promotion.”
Yes, it would fit in well. It’s interesting how it’s all boxing now that Tony has entered the ring. The Age, today, speaks of him as having “won the first round” with his parties victory in the by-elections and Barnaby Joyce can hardly open his mouth without some reference to a punch up.
Maybe, having discussed Tony and God, there might be room, some time, for talk on Tony and Pugilism.
You are looking a bit too deeply at my comments Pavlov’s cat. I did not argue Rudd is worse. And by the way I certainly am no defender of Abbott. Having been on the left since university days my main point of conflict has always been that the left don’t play fair. I don’t support Abbott and as a unionist have serious concerns about IR under him. However, I will not jump on the bandwagon and support having him attacked becuause he is religious. So is Rudd and much of the left has ignored this or at least kept the attacks private. As I have pointed out Rudd opposes embryo cloning and voted against it and I would be fairly sure there is a religious element there. Foe me the response is so what. Values are values however they have been formed. Abbott has his values informed by religious beliefs. So what. Others have values informed by belief in no God. Others have values informed by their environment. It is not an issue. By political ideology. Bt parties. The only issue is if through law a government mandated religious worship or adherence. Because I oppose war and this is influenced by my belief in the consistent ethic of life stemming from my religious beliefs about violence and respect for the human person does not make that belief bad. What about Ghandi? What about Martin Luther King? These men acted directly from their religious beliefs and attempted to translate them into new laws and outcomes.
So back to my original point. I did not argue that Rudd is worse. My goal is to see the left become a more consistent and less hypocritical force that might assist it to be taken more seriously.
“him going to head up the Congregation for Bishops”
Very important, no doubt, for Catholics. But – seriously – why should anyone else care?
Catholic conservatives in Australia have been brought into the orbit of the hard right, whereas before they used to be separate. The DLP/NCC once opposed White Australia but now the Catholic right is fully preoccupied with the Islamic threat.There’s nothing distinctively Catholic about the current hard right even although Catholic conservatives support it, Catholics once supported Labor but there was very little distinctively Catholic about Labor’s policies. Interwar European Catholic conservatives dreamed of an independent political role but in practice ended up as satellites of the Nazis.
Like his fellow political ‘fundamentalists, the problem with Abbot is that he wants to worship two contradictory gods – the god of materialism and the marketplace and the God of the bible, with all the myopic contradictions and inconsistencies that involves. More a case of confusion politics than conviction politics.
Tony Abbott is caught on the horns of a dilemma. He is smart enough to understand that his own, true, position on a number of issues is incompatible with the broad expectations of the polity he seeks to lead as putative PM.
Since he became leader some weak attempts have been made to call him on this apparent duality but he has been able to deflect them, mainly because the medium, TV, where he’s put himself about, is not very suited to lengthy and probing examination of his world view.
He has also fully recanted the non-doctrinal blunders and slips made in his previous political life, relying, incidentally, on a Catholic methodology in dealing with them – a full confession, contrite admission of sins and expectation of absolution after that. His expectation now is of a clean slate.
Abbott has straight away thrown the switch to vaudeville. Some of it is mischievously clever, such as meeting and joshing with the Dalai Lama, and revelling in the fact that Kevin is not in the position to do the same because he would be fearing a negative reaction from China, which went ballistic over the Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer visit. Abbott is, falsely in my view, representing himself as an independent, gutsy individual, unafraid of offending the mighty China, but if he were the PM, he would not have the luxury of the blithe spirit touch he is now playing.
Much was made of Tony’s appearance in Speedos. Purleeze. This was all rather puerile and hysterical press reaction and one which played into Abbott’s hands because it trivialised the real objections many voters would have to Abbott as PM and in effect deflected same. Abbott was chuffed to plead guilty to budgie smuggling.
The fourth estate is now waiting for an Abbott gaffe, a fall, a Latham moment. But it probably will not come before the election, which may have to be fought on actual issues and this will test Kevin and his team.
Certainly, Abbott will not allow himself to be drawn on abortion, stem cells or in-vitro, or any other topic where he would be forced to make a commitment which would run either counter to his interpretation of the Church’s teachings, or expectations of secular Australia and he will probably get away without having to test himself in this way. Expect more funny hats and lycra – it’s the perfect cover.
I should explain, “boxing the jesuit” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=boxing+the+jesuit
A full confession, Sir Henry? Can you post a link to it, because I missed it.
Couldn’t let Brisbane Archdiocese be denigrated without appropriate response: Sunday last (Nov 28/29) every parish heard Archbishop Bathersby’s homily which enunciated the evil threat that abortion is to that basic building block of our society: the family. Not one person left the church in response to this politically incorrect and counter-cultural message at my parish. The sacredness of human life is a Catholic fundamental. The extent to which you may find a “Catholic” objecting to such a basic is the extent to which they have placed themselves outside of full communion with this faith. ie as with the embryonic stem-cell debate in federal parliament the term “Catholic” was used very loosely by members clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church as they attempted to assuage their conscience as they voted to destroy innocent human life which only months later would have shared in their presumed privileges.
Well, not to get to far off topic, but there are plenty of non-metaphysical culture war tropes that Abbott is constantly going off his nut about.
This is a man who describes his ALP opponents as the ‘femintern new class’, Stalinists, etc.
When the Monk finally self-immolates it won’t be because he’s attacking what the Americans call ‘cafeteria Catholic’ values over the issue of RU 486 (and I agree with you that he’s not going to do any such thing in the first place.)
He’s more than capable of a purely secular kulturkampf meltdown—after all, Abbott’s greatest propagandist in the meeja is a Dutch Orangeman who is every bit as vitriolic an atheist as Christopher Hitchens is.
Mark says:
I can’t recall seeing any members of the “conservative commentariat” raise the sectarian spectre in defence of Abbott over the first few days of his new office. Perhaps Mark could point us to these “concerted efforts”, using the traditional “link, point and click” method.
Nor am I so sure that Abbott’s positions on “women’s rights” are so “reactionary”. Opposition to partial birth abortions are informed by concern for the sanctity of life, which is pro-anthropic not myscogynist. (FWIW I dont think he’s right, but he has a point.)
There was a “concerted effort” by the Left wing commentariat to brand Abbott as anti-women, based on a spurious reading of polling results. That argument has been shot down in flames by the latest polling.
Its way past time that the Left gave up this notion that the post-seventies sisterhood of radical feminists spoke for women in toto. Feminists have done much for women in the past, but unfortunately they are facing diminishing marginal returns in their reform agenda. Not to mention self-extinction owing to moribund breeding rates.
Silkworm, TA had made a number of appearances on TV and radio where he waxed prolix on the topic of a “fresh start” and a “new beginning” for himself after confessing and expiation (by public clean breast) of his past sins. This is a news report of his press conference immediately after winning the leadership. This is standard Catholic procedure in that after confession, you will not have to worry about punishment for your sins, as you are “not trapped by past sins”.
Here is a summary from
http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbott-im-sorry-and-and-ready-to-fight/story-e6frfkvr-1225805692680
That’s not a proper confession Sir Hank.
There is no indication in it of the nature of the sins, the circumstances of the commission of the sins, nor the number of times those sins were committed.
Indeed, Tony knows in his heart that his fake confession is in itself another sin.
It just gets worse for Tony!
And now Malcolm tells us Tony Abbott is full of bullshit. Abbott will surely spend an eternity in purgatory before they let him into Heaven. All those lies he’s told. :)
“Indeed, Tony knows in his heart that his fake confession is in itself another sin.”
Nothing like the smell of guilt in the morning!
“Indeed, Tony knows in his heart that his fake confession is in itself another sin.”
Yes, nicely observed, Katz.
Every time Tony opens his mouth he oozes smarminess and insincerity. His followers must be really stupid to think he will get away with it for very long.
This is very troubling indeed. In order to make a confession count one must be “pure of heart”. It is being suggested by Katz and silkworm that this is not the case. Where then does this leave Tony Abbott’s accusation of Bernie Banton in similar terms: “I know Bernie is very sick, but just because a person is sick doesn’t necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things.”
However, Mr Abbott realised that it was sinful to slag off at Bernie; certainly it clearly lacked not merely people skills but basic humanity, not to mention clearly being unpopular electorally, and he quickly apologised, confessing that it was a bad (sinful) thing to have done.
And by so doing thus, another sin was expiated. But he had a few goes at it.
At first, Mr Abbott said it was just “a misunderstanding”, but as the the dimensions of the sinfulness sunk in, he had another go at confessing: “Bernie is a sick man and obviously he has the moral high ground,” Tony conceded. Still, this wasn’t very convincing. So, later he went even further and said: “Obviously I shouldn’t have been as dismissive as I was.”
And this was the full monte. Sin cleansed. And Tony, being chuffed at this sacerdotal solution, told everyone that Bernie and him “were now mates” and that he gave him his “personal mobile number and told him to call any time.”
Perhaps we should ask Tony how many times Mr Banton availed himself of this facility for a mano a mano, or, whether Mr Banton would have considered it, LITERALLY a waste of breath.
The comforting thing to remember about god botherers of any ilk is that nearly all live in fear, fear they might go to Hell! Believers in it know that for however brief a time they have been in unbelief and in sin. Hence the astonishing lengths to which the religious go to preach Redemption and Forgiveness. Catholics in particular go to to irrational lengths ensure that absolution is available to them and to their loved ones in extremis.
I take great comfort in knowing that if there is an all knowing Creator it will be aware that this tiny blip of humanity which is me is truly grateful for the opportunity to participate in and enjoy the amazing conundrum of existence. I believe too that if there is any “sin” acknowledged by such a creator it would be lack of care for myself, others and for the planet we have been blessed to inhabit.
Tony Abbot, as you requested, we forgive you for past errors. Go now and sin no more!
Time it is, for an appropriate musical interlude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG0-cncMpt8
Oh my God no really. You are such a natural protestant Partricia. Catholics don’t go to hell. Not under any circumstances. At the very worst they soujourn in Purgatory and Limbo. The sacraments make sure that hell is not an option.
Hell is for protestants and everyone else.
And if you say your novena’s its a slam dunk, sistah – you are triple coated in the certainty you are missing the bbq.
Joe2, please. We are talking about groovy catholicism here.
And er, when I said Catholics go to Limbo, I meant all the babies who didn’t get to be Catholic and Virgil.
That is all.
Hell is like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FG3ExyeLs
OMG, OMG, OMG!!!!! Now Bernard is in on it:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/07/abbotts-catholicism-is-fair-game/
Well Therese is cutting something of an un-Anglican swathe in church – footage of the PM and TR emerging after earnest Protestant prayers on Sunday showed Therese sporting the most outrageous footwear I’ve ever seen come out of a place of worship – bright scarlet, killer pointy, shiny patent-leather f***-me shoes with four-inch stiletto heels! Good on you T.
“Perhaps we should ask Tony how many times Mr Banton availed himself of this facility for a mano a mano, or, whether Mr Banton would have considered it, LITERALLY a waste of breath.”
I laughed so hard, my casing broke.
Yes AdamT@73. I imagine that would have shortened the (church)doorstop considerably. Oh clever clever Therese.
Yes, for all it’s charming pomp and circumstance as beautifully art-directed cosmic performance art, Catholicism does rather lapse right at your end into “No look, I’m not crossing my fingers behind my back. I mean it this time. Honestly.”
So, Tony refused to tell Laurie Oakes whether he believed in evolution. If it embarrasses him to talk about it, then obviously he doesn’t. Tony is a creationist. This is a national disgrace.
“Tony is a creationist. This is a national disgrace.”
Met many pollies have you silky? They usually tend to believe they’ve created themselves.
And in breaking news, Australian opposition leader Tony Abbott has called upon Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to disinter the remains of Galileo Galilei and to burn them in an Italian public square, “We went soft on him back in the 17th century,” Mr Abbott said, “Now is the time to make a strong statement.”
Mr Abbott offered Darling Harbour as a venue for the immolation ceremony if Mr Berlusconi declined to act. “Darling Harbour has proven to be a wonderful place of religious faith in our new land,” Mr Abbott said.
Well, Abbott obviously belives in natural selection. He did become leader of the Liberal party.
Awwwww Paul Burns,
If Joe Hockey had won: Survival of the Fattest
I was only thinking of the convictions of Tony Abbott the other day.
How is it that a Catholic can be a ‘Constitutional Monarchist’?
That is a man that would take an oath and accept a head of State and Church that was formed on the basis of Adultery?
Not adultery, Marcus Aurelius, but incest (Leviticus, passim).
However, MA, in the general case you are absolutely correct.
No conscientious Catholic can ever accept constitutional monarchy, as it is understood by the Settlement of 1688, as legitimate.
Tony Abbott is living either a constitutional or a theological lie.
The fellow is either an ignoramus or he is a liar and a poltroon.
That’s the spirit, Mister Katz.
We faithful Catholics must keep the flames alive e’en in these dark times. No renegade English Monarch shall buy our fealty.
Well said Mr Fawkes.
Do you have matches?
Mister Katz,
I enquired of a sturdy yeoman, did he have a match?
“Forsooth, Sir! The face of the Abbott and the rear of a dog!” he cried and strode away to the public house.
His expostulation took me unawares, and I thought he showed no respect for Ecclesiastical Office.
Yet, Mr Fawkes, yon yeoman did give proof of admirable perspicuity.
Methinks the time not ripe for the Abbott’s flagitious jesuitical incendiarism.
Best you should back away slowly from your stockpile of gunpowder and resume your life as a good underground Catholick.
The time will come for you to claim the martyr’s crown and your reward of virgins in paradise.
Whoops, wrong religion.