Secularist Fascism in Australia

It is once common to call conservative people "fascists" when they insisted on some law the leftist libertines did not want to obey or some idea of public order the libertines did not want recognized. It was never an accurate term, not least because Mussolini's Fascists were leftists themselves.

You don't hear the word used very often any more, even by the leftist libertines, but I'm beginning to think that it might be worth resurrecting for the leftist libertines themselves.  From Australia comes the news that Cardinal Pell [is] to be interrogated by parliamentary committee for contempt of Parliament, a crime punishable by up to 25 years in jail.

He had told Catholic MPs that their vote on "therepeutic cloning" (the propagandists' euphemism) would affect their participation in church life. (Neither news story I have to hand gives his quote.) He had, I assume, warned them of the effect of voting for the murder of embyronic human beings on their worthiness to receive the eucharist.

In other words, he pointed out that their membership in a purely voluntary association is contingent on their holding and acting up on certain agreed beliefs. They are perfectly free to act on other beliefs and under no constraint to agree with him nor continue to be members of that voluntary association. What the secularists want is the right to tell the Church who may be a member and forbid it to set qualifications for membership with which the state disagrees, which kind of state control is reasonably called fascist.

The charge was brought by a Greens Party MP, though what connection there is between a concern for the environment and "therapeutic cloning" I have no idea. But it is true disturbingly often that when you find someone who believes in saving the whales he also believes in killing the unborn humans.

Comments

[William Burt]

Pell deserves everything he gets. Australia is a secular nation and the church, any church, should stay out of politics. The alternative is that we'll be dominated by the religous right; and who wants those loonies to have any political power.

[Bill R]

"The alternative is that we'll be dominated by the religous right; and who wants those loonies to have any political power."

You should only be so lucky, Mr. Burt. The True Loonies obviously already have substantial political power in Australia.

I do hope Cardinal Pell follows through with his promise to discipline those Catholic MPS who voted for this bill. Otherwise the True Loonies will have won, even if they don't interrogate the Cardinal.

[Chris Jones]

Mr Burt,

A Church is an organisation of people devoted to the maintenance and spread of specific religious beliefs. Those who do not share those beliefs have no business belonging to such an organisation. Church members who happen to be MPs are not exempt from the standards for membership that apply to everybody else in the organisation. Any MP who is excommunicated from a Church because he no longer believes in that Church's teachings will still have his seat in Parliament and can go on voting the same way he did before. The only difference is that he doesn't belong to his former Church anymore. I fail to see how the principles of democracy and secular government are threatened by that.

A Green Party MP who consistently votes against the platform of the Green Party will sooner or later be expelled from the party, because the party has the right to limit its membership to those who share its values and goals. It is no different with a Church.

[William Rush]

The Church can rightfully expect that its members accept the orthodox Creeds but in this day and age cannot demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as stem cell research. The view of the Church should be seriously considered but the Cardinal seem to hanker for the time in which he grew up, when obedience was unquestioned and gained more by fear than by love. It's not so long ago that the flock in Australia was 'ordered' not to vote for a particular political party on pain of excommunication. Persuasion yes, coercion, no.

[Peter Gardner]

If you think what Cardinal Pell is doing and saying is beyond the pale, that would be an excellent reason to not be an Australian Catholic.

[DGP]

The Church can rightfully expect that its members accept the orthodox Creeds but in this day and age cannot demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as stem cell research.

The trick, of course, is that embryonic stem cell research is not a morally difficult issue. Had the issue been approaches to Middle East conflict, or tax structures in Australia, or perhaps even the application of the death penalty to capital crimes, Cardinal Pell would have been imprudent to threaten the "participation" of disputants in the Church. But the issue is the inviolability of innocent human life. From a Catholic perspective, there is no moral ambiguity about it.

[David Gray]

>The Church can rightfully expect that its members accept the orthodox Creeds but in this day and age cannot demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as stem cell research.

Who says? The state?

[Judy Warner]

The question of whether secular authorities can tell private organizations what to do is constantly being fought here in the U.S. The most notable example is the Boy Scouts of America, on whom the ACLU is waging war because of their refusal to accept openly gay men as scout leaders. There have been several cases in the courts, one going to the Supreme Court (I believe it was Dale v. the ACLU), which the Boy Scouts won the right to govern their own organization. The ACLU then took the tactic of getting the Boy Scouts expelled from places where they had been meeting on the grounds that they discriminated against gays. This has been successful in many schools and parks and even military bases. There is a case now in California about the Scouts' use of a park in San Diego. Thus the ACLU keeps the Scout organization busy defending itself and spending a fortune on lawyers.

Of course, if the Scouts did install gay men as leaders and a boy were molested, the ACLU would be the first to sue to Scouts for negligence or some such charge.

[James A. Altena]

"The Church can rightfully expect that its members accept the orthodox Creeds but in this day and age cannot demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as stem cell research."

This is a red herring. The Church does *not* "demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as stem cell research." Rather, it informs them what views are to be held and acted upon by its members in good standing, to be eligible to partake of its privileges. The members are free to act upon their consciences against the teachings of the Church; but if they do so they are not also entitled to the privileges of the Church, such as participation in the Eucharist. Mr. Rush misses the obvious point that not only is membership in the Church voluntarily, but that its benefits are privileges contingent upon qualifying belief and conduct, not personal entitlements mandated by the state.

In short, people such as Mr. Rush typically have no problem with the state taking punitive action against Christians who choose to obey the teachings of the Church. For them, it is quite all right for the state forcibly to violate personal conscience by the power of law, but wrong for a private organization in which membership is purely voluntary to require adherence to any basic standards of belief and conduct in exchange for enjoyment of its benefits.

And of course C. S. Lewis has some pointed observations concerning those who smugly appeal to "this day and age" as a standard of superior liberty and enlightenment. The one that most readily comes to mind is: "To go with the times is of course to go where all times go."

[Ethan Cordray]

"The Church can rightfully expect that its members accept the orthodox Creeds but in this day and age cannot demand that its members put aside their own reason and consciences on difficult issues such as[abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality/stem cell research/cloning]."

Nice to see how the argument can extend itself.

[Ethan Cordray]

Mr. Mills raises an ecxellent point that I'm interested in exploring: why is it that so many putative defenders of the environment, who would never stand for the technological conquest of nature, defend the technological conquest of humanity?

I imagine the Greens Party MP probably opposes genetically modified foods. But somehow, genetically modified babies are okay...

[Laura]

Ethan,
I have also wondered about this. Perhaps it is because somehow humans are not seen to be as a good whereas those things found in "nature" are. The environmental movement has convinced us that spending billions of dollars to save the planet, whatever that should entail and no matter how poor our understanding of the physical systems involved, is of utmost importance. And yet, providing DDT to save millions of Africans is not.
The genetically modified food vs human genetic experimentation is perhaps the most stark contradiction. Human beings just don't deserve the same concern and protction.
The religious are often seen as dogmatic and rigid in their thinking, but we have a long way to get to the piety of the environmentalists.

[Yaknyeti]

Ethan,

Because we have Plenty of People, but not enough of the Environment that is desirable (i.e., untouched by Plenty of People)? It's supply and demand - and there are several demanding people around me whom I'd be just as happy to live without.

As for the GM crops, as long as we have sufficient supply, why mess with the root stock? There's no telling what we'll do to it. On the other hand, we constantly confront the problems of genetic diseases, cancer, etc., in the community around us, so there is a demand to get rid of that via GM babies. I agree with you that it's inconsistent... but hey, if the babies aren't really people yet, a lot of those who make the decisions don't think it's a serious problem.

[Ethan Cordray]

Thanks for the responses. It's quite sad, really, especially because only a deep care for people can lead to meaningful long-term environmental care. Conservationists understand this, and it may be what makes us different from environmentalists.

[GL]

Pell's response is in the same vein as the ETS's response to Beckwith's conversion: In Pell's case, the response was you can support "therepeutic cloning" or be in full communion with the Catholic Church, but you cannot do both; in the ETS's case, the response was you can be a leader in the ETS or be in full communion with the Catholic Church, but you cannot do both. David is absolutely correct, voluntary associations have *and should have* every right to define their rules of association. Three cheers for Cardinal Pell. If only the churches in the U.S. (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) would hold their own members to the same standards as Cardinal Pell. Would that the Catholic Church in the U.S. apply his reasoning to Senator Kennedy and the SBC apply his standard to President Clinton.

[Judy Warner]

>>>only a deep care for people can lead to meaningful long-term environmental care. <<<

And, Ethan, only a prosperous economy, which means a free-market economy, has been shown to produce enough excess wealth that people turn their minds from subsistence to preserving their environment. It's an empirical fact, not a philosophical speculation.

[labrialumn]

It is a pity that interdict is no longer part of canon law.

Cardinal Pell is doing what a good pastor should - forming the consciences of disciples. These don't want to be disciples, but they want all of the privileges thereof. They wish to commit sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Cardinal is not empowered to allow this evil, and the Cardinal cares enough about them to try to protect them from the wrath of God, for God has warned that He is willing to strike them dead (1 Corinthians 11).

[John V]

Assuming the "interrogation" is conducted in public, methinks the Greens will in the long run regret this course of action.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Mr. Mills raises an excellent point that I'm interested in exploring: why is it that so many putative defenders of the environment, who would never stand for the technological conquest of nature, defend the technological conquest of humanity?

The environmental left suffers from irreducible cognitive dissonance. On one hand, concern for the environment requires an essential conservatism: a healthy skepticism toward notions of "progress", grave suspicions toward any concentration of power, a default assumption of the inherent corruptibility of man.

On the other hand, the left is positively in love with, defined by, "progress". The left is quick to defend human freedom, now perceived merely as the power to do whatever one wants, against the strictures of local custom and tradition; and simultaneously quick to accept new technology, because technology makes us all rich (as history shows), and being rich enhances freedom, since if you're rich you get to do more of the things you want (which is freedom, baby).

But the problem for the (as yet unwittingly) conflicted environmental leftist it that it has been the very rise technology, which over the last 250 years or so has meant little more than finding more elaborate ways of burning more energy than the sun delivers on any given day, that most threatens the environment. The way this is done is by extracting vast reserves (100s of millions of years worth) of stored up solar energy in the form of fossil fuels.

So the environmental leftist is fundamentally conflicted because the thing he cares about and (rightly) ought to conserve, the environment, is threatened by the very thing he is ideologically committed to loving, viz., modern "progress". He cannot see out of the predicament, which would certainly begin by stepping back and looking more critically at modernity. Instead, since progress is an unquestioned (and unquestionable) good, he looks to technology for potential solutions to the very problems it helped to create in the first place.

And so we have the incoherence of suggesting solutions like "alternative fuels", which is nothing less than burning up food or the means to produce it, without ever questioning our decadent way of life, subsisting in large part of Suburban Sprawl and Happy Motoring.

The environmental left runs crazed about reducing carbon emissions, looking down its collective nose at the drivers of SUVs (and 12-passenger vans) and what not, yet find me one in a thousand who is really willing to reduce his own carbon emissions to below that of today's per capita global average. What about the per capita global average of 150 years ago? Any takers? (NB: I am personally less than convinced about about the human contributions to Global Warming™, and even less sanguine about the possibility or prudence of trying to do much about it.)

In short, what the environmental leftist needs to realize is that "environmental leftist" is a fundamental contradiction in terms. Concern for the environment needs to start with a inherently conservative outlook: skepticism of progress, disdain for ideologies, centralization, and most especially "efficiency", a love for particular places, and particular traditions. Russell Kirk once called automobiles "mechanical Jacobins". He was the true environmentalist.

If the Greens could pull their collective head out of the ass of enlightenment liberalism, they'd find a happy home on the Environmental Right.

[Brian John Schuettler]

Cardinal Pell, to his everlasting credit, is addressing a moral issue (defined as such by the Catholic Church) and his right, indeed his duty, to address this moral issue as an ordained priest and now national Shepherd of the Catholic Church in Australia. His concern is not for the "politics" of the Catholic MPs but rather for their eternal soul and their influence, in this case, and scandalous indifference to the teachings of the Body of Christ.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Is Cardinal Pell replying,

"Please, please don't throw me in the briar patch."

[John]

Quite. Just what the doctor ordered, I would have thought. Cardinal Pell gets to play Saint Thomas More, the Greens look stupid for interrogating him like some kind of thought police, and Cardinal Pell gets huge publicity while processing martyr-like in and out of Parliament to explain what the fuss is about.

Sooner or later, they always over-reach.

[peasant]

Leftists think that
a) Exclusion of anybody from any private organization == discrimination. Damn right. It's called 'freedom of association'
b) It's any Tom, Dick, & unrepentant Harry's inalienable Right to take Holy Communion wherever they please. Damnably wrong. It's a privilege and a sacred ritual.

Cardinal Pell is wise to fear God, not man.

[peasant]

The greens are really watermelons.
Believers still live in countries where their faith is illegal, not because it is not the faith of the majority, but because the leadership preaches there is no God to believe in, that Christ is a liar, that faith in what cannot be seen is utter stupidity.

[Nick]

William,

The man is a cardinal discussing a topic discussed in a negative lite by the current and last Popes on an issue touched on in the Didache (destruction of human life prior to birth). If he doesn't have authority to determine Catholic reasoning in this matter who exactly does? I'd greatly appreciate knowing.

[David Palmer]

Cardinal Pell is in no danger.

He is an asset to the Australian Church (and I as a Presbyterian I define that in a Touchstonian fashion) and the politicians won't touch him.

The fantastic news from down under is that the case brought by the Islamic Council of Victoria against a Christian group, Catch the Fire Ministries under the State of Victoria's Religious Vilification laws has collapsed. PRAISE THE LORD!!

[Ethan Cordray]

Mr. Nicoloso, we are of one mind on that issue.

For anyone interested in such things, do not let the title of Mr. Nicoloso's linked blog dissuade you from reading some of it. I find James Howard Kunstler one of the better voices of secular conservatism these days. I'm currently reading his first two books about conserving and restoring the urban fabric against the utopian progressivism of the automobile suburbs and modernist architecture. They're very good, and quite conservative (despite Kunstler's avowed status as a Democrat and a writer for Rolling Stone).

[Michael McDonough]

I agree with those who see this as an opportunity for Cardinal Pell to "evangelize" the politicians. He was speaking well within his duty as a Shepherd of the flock. Good for him, and thanks for him!

In addition, in this age of "capitalism gone wild", how come nobody is pointing out that the reason governments need to fund embryonic stem cell research in the first place is a) it is how scientists and their corporations can get patents on human body parts, and b) the Allmighty Capital Markets find the activity so risky, especially given the success of the competing technology, i.e., adult and hybrid stem cells, that it can find no money for venture capital funding?

[Steve Nicoloso]

Speaking of Catholic Bishops standing up (for once) for the Faith and Morals, I'd like to put in a grandiose shout-out (well-advertised elsewhere in the Catholic Blogosphere) for my OWN Bishop Arthur Serratelli hard hitting defense of the Pope against the criticisms of a few "Catholic" politicians who took issue with some of the Holy Father's remarks in Brazil. Woo Hoo!!

Ethan, yes, Kunstler is a great read. He's far from conservative, but he's conservative where it counts. He's also grotesquely pessimistic, which makes for electrifying reading, but he thereby overshoots his doom-laden divinations by many miles. But his prescriptions are dead square: Stop living above your means, stop living with your head in the clouds, look at the crap around you, grow up and do something about it. That's good policy, and a relatively inexpensive policy at that! And his relentless shredding of the oh-so stylish environmental "left" rises to the level of comic poetry. Like Esolen (or Hutchens for that matter) taking on Church Ladyism, he makes sense at the rational level, but manages to hit you at the visceral level as well: a two-fer!

[Eric Alcock]

The news that Cardinal Pell is to be interrogated by parliamentary committee for contempt of Parliament is of course ridiculous and absolutely unwarranted.

However, while Cardinal Pell created a lot of publicity and highlighted the moral dangers with embryonic stem cell research, he has failed badly to deal with renegade Catholic politicians and has also failed to present in this controversy the most urgent and relevant Catholic teaching.

In a series of postings, I presented a case for the Cardinal's failure on the Vote Life, Canada! blog. A good post to start with is here.
http://votelifecanada.blogspot.com/2007/06/dear-pope-benedict-cardinal-pell-needs.html

Very disappointing show.