Wednesday, 3 July 2013

The bishops on voting: apparently they are only interested in readers of The Australian

Through Cath News today I learnt of a new guide on voting for Catholics put out by the Australian Bishops Conference.

But apparently it will only be of interest to readers of The Australian, since it is a paywalled article over there that Cath News is reporting.

Using social media?!

Now I've long since been dropped from the list for media statements from the ACBC presumably because I'm too often critical of them (though of course being critical doesn't normally stop them feeding the mainstream media!), but the guide isn't on the ACBC website, nor does it seem to be featured on the ACBC media blog (but see below).

There is a tweet on it from the ACBC - pointing you to the (paywalled!) Oz article.

Same thing on their facebook page.

(**Update: They've now tweeted a link to the Cath News item which at least links to the document as well.  LOL!

And the media blog has been updated...though looking at it the post is dated from yesterday - I'm not sure if this is a little quick backdating, or it just didn't update on my computer for some reason, because it certainly didn't show up when I checked earlier!)

Right.

Does the Oz get the guernsey because they were the only ones to praise, rather than criticise, Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Hart's efforts on tackling child abuse?

And I guess I shouldn't bother drawing the attention of my (quite substantial number of) readers to it?

That seems a shame, since we do actually need to get Catholics thinking about how to use their vote effectively.

Vote for the Common Good

Fortunately, Cath News (though not the ACBC!) does provide a link to where you can find the 'letter' online, on a new website  set up for the election.

At a quick glance, it sets out lots of key 'principles' of Catholic Social Teaching.

It includes a highly selective list of election issues - economic management isn't included for example,  and while life issues do get a mention they are given no more weight than a suite of the other stock standard feel good issues (yes, refugees, Indigenous, environment, etc).

Many of the statements on the issues (such as refugees, sole parents and so forth) look at odds with the (currently stated!) policies of both major parties, which is fair enough, but poses some challenges when it comes to voting!

So how do we go about weighing things up?  Maybe there will be a follow up piece.

In the meantime you can hear it read aloud if you prefer...

No comments: