Wednesday, 21 May 2008

Vote for the next AB of Sydney!

Over at what cooees call aCatholica, there is a rather bizarre poll running on who should take over from Cardinal Pell if he moves on to greater things after World Youth Day (h/t to Senire Cum Ecclesia,

Wishful thinking perhaps?

Now the whole idea of a vote of this kind speaks buckets about the mentality of that site, as does the construction of the comments around it and choices we are offered to vote for! And I hate the idea of giving their site hits.

All the same, I do think we should attempt to skew their results!

As an incentive, let me tell you that Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (whose book has recently been condemned for erroneous teaching by the Australian Bishop's Conference) is currently running equal first.

So please everyone, have some fun and scare the Catholica types by going over and voting for someone who will defend the orthodox faith:

Of the choices offered for question 2, AB Coleridge or AB Hart of Melbourne spring to mind (but I'd be interested in other proposals)!

In the first list, some of the Sydney and Melbourne auxiliaries (such as Bishop Fisher, or Bishop Elliot) as well as people like Bishop Jarrett, might have been more obvious contenders for question 2 than some of those on the list....


Joshua said...

Surely everyone knows that Bp Fisher will end up either Abp of Sydney, or a Cardinal? It's just obvious. And as usual the Catholica crowd are deluding themselves.

Brian Coyne said...

We certainly welcome as many votes as possible from Tradionalist and Conservative Catholics.

I'd address the same questions to the writer of this blog that I addressed to David Shutz: "And which Bishop do you think might be capable of turning around the catastrophic decline in relevance of the Church in Australia? Or are you another who believes it is all "their" fault — those who have stopped listening? I'd be very interested in your take."


Brian Coyne
Catholica Australia

David said...

My "take", Mr Coyne, is as follows:

1. I do not argue "it is all 'their' fault - those who have stopped listening.

2. If you want to "blame" someone for the state of the Church in Australia, first on the list ought to be the "Spirit of Vatican II" folks - guitar strummin', baby-killin', contraceptin', sandal wearin', kumbaya-singin', heretic-kissin', liturgy mutilatin', Pope-defyin' 1960s relics who hang out at Catholica and staff so many of our parishes and Chanceries.

3. The following are also on my list:

a. feminized clergy;
b. anyone whse ever had anything to do with a "folk" Mass;
c. Nuns in pants suits;
d. Priests who don't wear cassocks;
e. dumbed-down liturgies and anything translated by ICEL
f. the decline or virtual abandonment of the following:
i) public roasries;
ii) Eucharistic Adoration
iii)Preaching about the 4 last things
iv) Latin and Gregorian Chant.

Catholocism is about being a grown-up. It's sometimes a hard road that requires spiritual strength and maturity. Too many people at Catholica Australia infantalize us by treating us as spiritual children and slaves to our passions. They see nothing wrong with that. In fact, they glory in it. Hey, you want to sleep around and then have an abortion? Why not! God's cool with that nowadays! Sodomy anyone? Of course! So long as it's sodomy with love! Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...

No, I don't say the state of the Church is necesssarily the fault of those who have fallen away. I blame professional dissenting laity, religious, and clerics who have all but abandoned Catholocism for an ersatz quasi-protestant religion. They should know better.

As to the bishop who would best save the situation...I'll be totally impractical and suggest something that ain't ever going to happen - name any FSSP priest in Australia.

Faz said...

1st Voice: OK boys and girls that Catholica is really awful, let's ignore it. OK?

2nd Voice: YES I'm with you all the way!

1stV: I mean, voting for a Bishop is silly right? So let's just ignore it?

2ndV: Really silly. The best thing to do is ignore it. I can't wait to start!

1stV: And 'Catholica'? What a silly, silly name. 'Australia Incognita'? Now THERE'S a name! Both parts of the name end in 'a'. Beat that CatholicA. But we'll just ignore it right? Are you with me?

2ndV: Two 'a's? Right on! I'm working up to a big ignore!

1stV: Well voting IS silly -- except for a conclave of course! -- but we could just attempt to skew it our way, couldn't we?

2ndV: We could! We could skew it our way (err ... what's our way again?). Then we'll ignore it!

Faz - not ignoring you

Terra said...

Faz, much as one would like to ignore the efforts of cafeteria catholics (read heretics), my thinking is that the things they come up with will undoubtedly be used to fuel the attack on the Church in the secular media and elsewhere.

Consider for example Dr Collins' 'petite petition' calling for the abandonment of dogma on women priests that unbelievably even got air time at an Australian Bishop's Meeting.

So I think traditionalists and conservatives should actually mobilise on this one. But perhaps further debate on this is needed?

As for Mr Coyne's question. I agree wholeheartedly with David's list. The problem is that the Church has been too concerned with 'relevance' and not enough with the reasons for its existence, viz worshipping God and the salvation of mankind.

A church that can't even manage to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as is commanded in Mt 28:19 because it is trying too hard to be PC is the problem, not lack of relevance. A church that, instead of teaching people to observe the commandments (Mt 28:20) gives awards to those making programs about the problems of those who don't keep the commandments is the problem, not lack of relevance. A church that fails to 'make disciples of all nations' in the name of ecumenical dialogue is the problem, not lack of relevance.

We should remember that we are called to be a sign of contradiction in the world.

What we need from all of our bishops is a focus on the restoration of a sense of the sacred in the liturgy, and on making sure that the catholic faith is being taught in our churches and schools.

Faz said...

Oh come on Terra. You've had a bit of fun with Catholica and when I respond in kind you get all serious!

So let's be serious: what of 'let's skew the results'. Beyond the fun, where's the morality in that enterprise? Where's the call to be counter-cultural and reject moral relativism in that? What is it if not 'ends justifies means'?

I start to read your response and get to '(read heretics)' and think, 'who do you think you are?'. People who toss around these epithets seem to suffer from a hubris problem. It's instructive that even the most conservative of church leaders are reluctant to use such language, but lay people are happy to take them on with alacrity.

You can use these labels in the comfort of your own playground and be confident that your audience is collectively stroking their chins and thinking 'mmm ... yes, yes!', but in the world of our church they fuel division, not unity.

Terra said...

Well Faz, I guess when I see error being advocated in the Church and remember all those Scriptural warnings about wolves in sheep's clothing, and fearing those who can kill the soul, I tend to lose my sense of humour.

At one level this poll is kind of entertaining. At another it lends credibility to the idea of democratizing the Church which I abhor. Hence my ambivalence.

It is certainly true that church leaders today are reluctant to call a spade a spade. That's probably why we traditionalists prefer the old Good Friday prayers where we do still call pagans and heretics just that!

What is more important, unity or truth? I'm voting for truth.

On skewing results, its an open poll - and I'll readily admit that I was perhaps engaging in hyperbole. The relatively few (but treasured) readers of my rather new blog will probably have little impact on the overall results given that Catholic is a very well-established forum with lots of members.

But even that little mark is sometimes worth making.

And there is something fun (albeit in a slighly twisted way) in seeing one more vote for some of the good guys go in even as one squirms in horror at seeing who the current poll leaders are(Bishop Power et al).

Faz said...

You paint a confusing message Terra.

First you poke fun at Catholica (I have nothing against that BTW) then get all stern and lose your sense of humour.

Then you state how you abhor democracy in term of the church and talk about 'voting for the truth' in the context of language that leadership chooses. Hey, I don't like it, but you don't get a vote!

The content and tone of leadership language is a model for all who regard authority as important. I'd have thought that would include those claiming to be traditional?

I really don't think it's necessary to take the Catholica poll seriously, it's a bit of mischievous fun. But you, at first, try to make mileage out of it and then suggest we 'skew' it. Even in the context of the poll's frivolity, I think you are taking it seriously enough to engage in morally dodgy conduct.

Terra said...

Faz, I'm not taking the catholica poll too seriously either.

I really can't see what is morally dodgy about urging people to vote in a poll? To be serious for a moment:

Our motives - to make a point that not everyone supports those less inclined to support a watering down of orthodoxy.

The circumstances - its open to anyone to vote, and the organisers have even welcomed our encouraging people to vote.

The end - this is not a real vote for the next AB, and the results won't have any dire consequences that I can see (in fact, if anything our voting is likely to counteract any bad use that might otherwise be made of a such a poll).

Lighten up yourself!