Make Text Larger Make Text Smaller Email this Article to a Friend Print this Article

Catholic groups concerned over carbon plan

Published: December 16, 2008

Catholic groups have reacted with concern and even outrage over the Federal Government's decision to rule out deep cuts to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions before 2020.

Ninesmsn reports that green groups have universally condemned the government's "weak" plan to cut Australia's carbon emissions but big business isn't happy either.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on Monday announced a maximum cut of 15 percent by 2020 if the rest of the world signs a climate pact. If no pact is signed, Australia will go with an unconditional five percent cut.

The targets are well below the 25-40 percent cuts that scientists say countries must achieve to avert catastrophic climate change.

The targets are also short of the recommendation made by the government's own climate adviser Professor Ross Garnaut, who proposed cutting emissions by at least 25 percent if the world strikes a strong climate pact.

A day of broken promises: Edmund Rice Centre

In a statement the Edmund Rice Centre said that "the 15 of December, 2008 will go down in Australia's history as a day of broken promises and a dramatic failure of leadership."

"In November 2007, Australians voted against John Howard and his government of climate sceptics. The whole nation was led to believe that with Kevin Rudd there would be a substantive difference in Australia’s approach to climate change.

"It seems that the once again a narrow understanding of the economy has taken priority over humanity and the long term interests of an economy that works for climate justice, and future generations," the ERC statement says.

"These generations will be required to undertake what Australia has neglected to begin to do today, namely to develop a sustainable economy that serves the planet and its people together.

"Australia had a choice. This was an opportunity to make our voice heard as part of a community of nations prepared to make more genuine commitments.

"Instead as a nation we have chosen to follow China, India and the United States, and ignore the voices of people from low lying island nations and highly populated delta nations like Bangladesh."

Maria Tiimon, who comes from the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati and who works for the Edmund Rice Centre’s Pacific Outreach project said she was "disappointed, and shocked. I expected better from Mr Rudd. I thought he was different from John Howard and really behind this issue. I feel betrayed by a leader who promised so much a year ago."

"What will happen to people such as the people from my nation of Kiribati who are displaced? If other countries follow Australia’s lead, the low lying Pacific Islands and other nations like Bangladesh will be affected sooner than is currently predicted. Will Australia be giving out more money for adaptation? Will Australia allow for more displaced people to come here as part of its migration program?"

Emissions plan to cost hospitals $100 million a yea

Catholic Health Australia chief executive Martin Laverty said the emissions trading scheme would cost the nation's health and aged care sector $100 million in its first year alone.

Each hospital bed emits 28 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, or about twice as much as an average household, he said.

Mr Laverty said the scheme should have been accompanied by an assistance package for hospital and aged care providers.

Catholic hospital and aged care services face a bill of $10 million in year one of the Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and the total cost of the carbon trading scheme to the health and aged sector in Australia could top $100 million in the first year alone.

"On average every hospital bed emits 28 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, or about twice as much as an average household," Mr Laverty said. 

"We want to see this reduced, and we're looking to partner with Government to achieve these reductions.

"Today's White Paper indicates hospitals will not be required to purchase carbon permits, because they do not directly emit in excess of the Government's chosen limit of 25,000 tonnes per annum. We welcome this commitment.

"Yet the White Paper is ambiguous on the assistance and incentives available to help reduce carbon emissions within not-for-profit hospitals and aged care services," Mr Laverty said.

"The White Paper does not make it clear that not-for-profit hospitals or aged care services will definitely be eligible for these grants," Mr Laverty said.

"Nor has the Government addressed increasing costs that hospitals and aged care services will face as a result of energy and other inputs becoming more expensive.

Package welcome and well targeted: Catholic Social Services Australia

But Catholic Social Services Australia's Executive Director, Frank Quinlan, welcomed the release of the Federal Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme White Paper, saying the focus on a substantial compensation package for low income earners is welcome and well targeted.

Speaking shortly after the Prime Minister launched the paper today, Mr Quinlan said the release of the paper raises a number of questions.

"While the Government's commitment to low income households is to be commended, the report makes no mention of funds that will be urgently needed to educate and mitigate the lasting impact of climate change on low income households," Mr Quinlan said.

"The measures to compensate the incomes of low income households are welcome but we also need to ensure that these households have an opportunity to reduce their energy consumption to protect them from the effects of rising utilities costs for decades to come. The careful implementation of such a mitigation strategy also has the potential to provide low income earners with jobs.

"We must also look to the Harmer review of pensions and the Henry review of the taxation system to ensure this important compensation package is maintained in future.

"In addition, it is difficult to judge whether the funding committed to mitigate the effects of climate change on the community sector itself will be adequate. Substantial modelling will be required to determine how community agencies themselves, often working from older buildings and facilities, can best protect themselves from the effects of climate change.

"There is a desperate need to ensure the Commonwealth Infrastructure Fund is used to invest in infrastructure that will build the capacity of the community and the community sector.

"The Government's National Compact process provides an important opportunity to support the reform of the community sector," Mr Quinlan said.

In a joint submission to the Prime Ministerial Taskforce on Emissions Trading in April 2007 Catholic Social Services Australia called on the Task Group to assess emissions trading models against the equity principles of responsibility, capacity and vulnerability.

 

SOURCE

Green groups condemn ETS, business wary (Ninemsn, 15/12/08)

Business wary of ETS, green groups angry (Sydney Morning Herald, 15/12/08)

Carbon scheme to cost hospitals $100 million - but no compensation offered (CHA, Media Release, 15/12/08)

CPRS compensation for low income households welcome but more work to do (CSSA, Media Release, 15/12/08)

Five per cent is hope betrayed (Edmund Rice Centre, 15/12/08)

LINKS

Edmund Rice Centre

CHA

CSSA


 

Response to articles is welcome. Simply follow the prompts to post your comment. No posting of more than 250 words will be published. While critical comment on stories and issues is welcomed, postings that descend to personal attacks on or impugn the integrity of other commentators will be blocked. Please use your own name, or initials, eg John Brown, or JB, or JAB, or Johnny. You are also required to add your location - as in, Sunshine, Victoria. Please provide your email address in the line supplied, followed by your contact phone number. These are requested for identification purposes only and will not be published. If you have any problems, please email news@cathnews.com


 


Recent Comments

  1. To all Rudd voters.... you reap what you sow!

  2. I couldn't give two figs about the hysterial groupspeak and group think about the alleged 'climate change' and the unproven correlation between carbon emmissions and change in climate.
    I am however all in favour of moderate and long term change and planning for alternative forms of energy such as natural gas which is not really spoken about much in this debate. The nonsense of having windmills everywhere is really worse than double-Dutch.
    'Catholic' environment groups are basically just ideological groups who haven't got the honesty to admit that they are ideological. Why don't they just join the loopy 'Greens' instead of using the name Catholic to prop themselves up ?
    The real issue is not 'climate change' but rather the issue of POLLUTION ( of earth, water, sea and air). Natural gas and electricity can reduce these problems. So too does new technology over time( no need for hysteria and emotional worry worts).
    The other issue is keeping manufacturing generally and energy production in Australian government hands and producing it all here and thus keeping jobs, and profits here in Australia.
    Forget the Greens and forget about these bogus 'Catholic' groups who do not represent the majority but are just another boring media alliance partner in disinformation.

  3. Margaret,
    I'm no fan of the mantras about 'climate change' however, Rudd is only doing what Turnbull would also do re: the moderate 5% target by 2020.
    Haven't you worked out yet that the ALP and the Libs/Nats are much the same?

  4. Those who choose to indulge in carping criticism of the Rudd Government's approach to emission trading should recognise that this is only a starting point in the negotiating process. Depending on the approaches adopted by governments other than Australia the bar can be raised. Bismarck's statement some 140 years ago rings true today - "Politics is the Art of the Possible"

  5. It’s at least positive that Michael Webb acknowledges the need for alternative forms of energy; the rest of his comments are, however, ridiculous. It is difficult to follow his argument other than to recognise it as a rant aimed at groups that are concerned about the environment. Clearly he wasn’t attempting a [factual] analysis of the government’s statement otherwise his research would have led him realise that an indisputable body of scientific data has shown a causal link between carbon emissions and climate change. In case he has an open mind I’ll include comment by Dr Andrew Glikson from the Research School of Earth Science at the Australian National University who sent a brief submission to Crikey.com It crunches some sobering numbers.

    According to leading US climate and paleo-climate scientists, the current CO2 levels of 387 ppm (433 ppm CO2 + CH4 equivalent) are dangerously close to the 450 ppm CO2 level at which the polar ice sheets formed 34 million years-ago. This projection is consistent with the current fast ice melt rates in the Arctic Sea, Greenland and west Antarctica, including melting of the Wilkins ice shelf last July -- one of the first times mid-winter ice shelf breakdown was observed.
    The sensitivity of the atmosphere has been underestimated. Ice core studies of the Pleistocene (1.8 Ma to 11,700 years-ago) glacial-interglacial cycles display abrupt global warming and cooling events on time scales of few years to decades, including sharp climate tipping points at 14,700, 12,900 and 11,700 years-ago.
    IPCC climate projections and plans for emission caps restricting temperature rises to two or three degrees and time tables for carbon emission reduction targets such as 15 percent by 2020 or 60 percent by 2060, take little account of the rates of ice sheet melt/water feedbacks loops and carbon cycle feedback loops, including release of methane hydrates from sea bottom sediments and from bogs.
    Plans for climate stabilization at 450 ppm may not be able to prevent melting of the polar ice sheets. Plans for stabilization at 650 ppm may not be able to stop runaway greenhouse effects and associated extinctions.

  6. The image which introduces this story is thoroughly deceptive - clouds of dirty particulate matter spewing from industrial chimneys- chosen so as to portray carbon dioxide as a dirty pollutant, which it is not. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, tasteless and odourless gas - it is invisible!
    This is only the beginning of the deception. The whole "climate change" scenario is an invention, designed to create mass hysteria, supported by the flimsiest of evidence, a global increase in mean temperature of about 0.5 degrees Celsius from about 1900 to 1995 (and now in decline). That miniscule increase, inconsequentially small in light of the large climate variations over earth's history, has been magnified out of all proportion by biased selectivity of global weather events and by unjustified extrapolation using exaggerated computer modeling. We are being taken "for a ride".
    Catholic groups need to be very careful of what they support and why they support it. The islands of Kiribati are not the victims of global warming but of local conditions, and to pretend that what we do or what the world does with regards to atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction is going to have any effect on their predicament is both a nonsense and a deception.



  7. Catholics, per se, do not have expertise in climate science, so it is kind of irrelevant that "Catholic groups" want deeper emissions cuts (as it would be if you reported "local cycling club comments on fiscal policy") However, we do as Catholics believe in the importance of truth, so it would make sense to report, "Catholics against unscientific climate change hysteria".

    There is no evidence of global warming over the last eleven years, so why now target CO2 emisions in fighting climate (ie weather) change?

  8. I sympathise with those people who want a stronger Australian response, but, I empathise with those Australians, especially farmers, who could not cope with the stronger response and fulfil the demands of Australians for food and clothing.

    There is a change happening in agriculture and for the better, but it needs support, the support of the entire Australian population.

    Until we can provide food security for all Australians we have to hold off on stronger targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

    That does not mean that those industries that could do more should be let off the hook, but agriculture must be allowed to complete the changes underway before it is compelled to meet a bigger target.

    The coal and fossil fuel industries should voluntarily work for higher targets and subsidies should go to the renewable energy industries.

    Please consider those involved in agriculture before calling on across the board targets.

  9. Who appointed these groups to represent Catholics anyway?

    Is there a 'Catholic' percentage, ordained eternally by God, for the reduction target? Can it be deduced by theological reasoning or scriptural exegesis? If not, what is so 'Catholic' about Edmund Rice's position?

    These are prudential matters, not theological ones. These partisan groups need to remember their place.

  10. Dear Jeff Kevin
    Thanks for the scientific tips however, the unanimity you claim from the scientific community is not quite so unanimous. Science isn't determined by a few pseudo intellectual programmes on the ABC eg Q&A or from SBS.
    In any case cutting down on carbon emissions is more a case of reducing air, sea and land pollution. If there be much of an effect on 'climate change' politically it would never work out with just Australia or Western European nations being the 'good guys' unilaterally setting and fulfulling any targets. Even if all nations opted in ( which will never happen) there is no proof that 'cliamte change' would be halted or reversed.
    I prefer less of the media and usual inner city crowd secular histrionics and more calm introduction of new energies, especially of natural gas, to tackle general pollution issues.
    'Climate change' is to do with the changes in distance between the earth and the sun I suspect.

  11. I'm baffled by the responses of some people here - from denial of climate change outright, to people telling Catholic environmental groups to back out.

    Obviously I'll have no luck convincing people of the former (they've all probably heard the same arguments before and just refuse to acknowledge them), I'll just move straight onto the latter.

    As Catholics we have a responsibility to make this world a better place. This means picking fights outside of the theological realm. We were appointed as caretakers of this Earth by God, and thus have a moral responsibility to take care of it and be advocates for positive change. Unless you're suggesting we should also stop taking stances on all issues that affect both God's earth and the people on it...

  12. (Jeff) “an indisputable body of scientific data has shown a CAUSAL link between carbon emissions and climate change.”
    What? Show us this supposed data. I’ve never heard anybody make this bold claim before that “carbon” ( I presume you mean carbon DIOXIDE) emissions have been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be the cause of actual climate change.

    “one of the first times mid-winter ice shelf breakdown was observed.”
    There are 2 possibilities Jeff mate, either it was the first time ice shelf breakdown was observed, or it has been observed before in past winters. There can’t be multiple “first times”. I would have thought any scientist would know that.

    “Ice core studies of the Pleistocene (1.8 Ma to 11,700 years-ago) glacial-interglacial cycles display abrupt global warming and cooling events on time scales of few years to decades, including sharp climate tipping points at 14,700, 12,900 and 11,700 years-ago.”
    I see, there have been 3 big sudden global climate changes at a time when the world population was only a few million nomads and the only man-made carbon dioxide emissions were their occasional campfires. Seems pretty strong evidence that if we are beginning another big climate change it is probably also caused by natural forces.

  13. When Green groups start worrying about the destruction of unborn babies THEN I will stary worrying about the environment.

  14. And Jeff please drop the silly politically-correct "11,700 years-ago" [sic] for 9700 BC.

  15. It is about time Catholics woke up to this fraud. It is PANTHEISM, The New Religion! Practice your Faith, read the Gospels. Say the Rosary.

  16. A new religion is being created by non-representative groups preaching to us about an alleged link between carbon emissions and climate change. Hey Sydney weather has been cool this summer.
    'Climate change' religionists follow the 'gospel' of the ABC and the chattering classes agenda. This 'gospel' is preached at us 24/7 in most 'mainstream' ( the big boys) corporate media. It is very shrill.
    Most people are cheesed off by it. It is a false gospel.

  17. Alex, I'm pretty sure everybody here agrees wholeheartedly that "As Catholics we have a responsibility to make this world a better place. This means picking fights outside of the theological realm. We were appointed as caretakers of this Earth by God, and thus have a moral responsibility to take care of it and be advocates for positive change. ....taking stances on all issues that affect both God's earth and the people on it."

    The problem is that the leaders of the ERC seem to have taken a leap of faith in the dire apocalyptic prophecies of the "deep green" climate change doomsday-announcers, which is not based on either their Catholic faith nor, arguably, on sound logical, objective and rational science. I think the wise Catholic would not give a blank cheque of automatic spiritual endorsement to the astronomically expensive and vastly disruptive prescriptions of these self-proclaimed modern-day (almost invariably atheist) "deep-green" prophets.

  18. Alex Knight, I think you've missed the point.

    What we object to is not that individual Catholics hold opinions on the environment & global warming with which we differ. It's that organisations which sport a Catholic mantle associate themselves with these opinions - implying you're less Catholic if you have a differing opinion on the issues. That's the hogwash. Note, of course that had these organisations spruiked anti-AGW platforms, they would be EQUALLY deserving of censure. Loyal Catholics might reach entirely opposed positions on these matters of prudence and are entitled to express their opinions without having the finger pointed at them.

    How can these organizations have misunderstood this basic point, which runs through Church teaching on revelation and natural knowledge? How can Catholics trust them with our money and resources, if they manifest such a poorly focused understanding of their mission? Such statements as they have made will only lead to a drop of support from ordinary Catholics - and deservedly so, it must be said.

  19. Well, as Catholics we have a responsibility to look after the environment. Being advocates for positive change is a part of this - and the best way to be advocates, in the world we live in, is to group together so that we may be heard better. Hence, the idea of Church-endorsed groups for certain issues is certainly not only useful but maybe even necessary.

    The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that humans are directly contributing to climate change, and therefore we need to reduce carbon emissions to minimise the negative impact we have upon the environment. As a result, it would be irresponsible for Catholic groups to ignore this consensus and not fight for more restrictions on carbon emissions, as doing so would be failing in our duty to care for our planet.

  20. Gareth

    Green groups ARE worrying about the destruction of unborn babies - why else would they try to avoid problems that are likely to lead to the widespread destruction of human life of future generations, but are less likely to impact in the very near future?



  21. The day greens and their supporters place shelter and a home in perspective, they may yield some sense.

  22. "As a result, it would be irresponsible for Catholic groups to ignore this consensus and not fight for more restrictions on carbon emissions, as doing so would be failing in our duty to care for our planet."

    You've proved my point, Alex. You are here ascribing moral blame to Catholic organizations if they don't push a line which - despite any alleged secular "consensus" - is not Catholic teaching: i.e., you're confusing Gospel with policy. As a result, those who might be attracted by the pure Gospel message of the Church but who have arrived in conscience at a different position on Global Warming - including many scientists - might now think "No way will I join a Church that wants to shove that rubbish down my throat". Conversely those who might actually join the Church because it's turning "green" according to their own criteria, will be joining under an illusion.

    Individual Catholics are perfectly free to band together to care for the environment as they best see fit - whether it's for OR against the theory of global warming. But official Catholic organizations have no business pushing a line that implies one is a Bad Catholic if one dares to think for oneself and challenge the so-called consensus.

    I for one will be exercising my responsibility and warning as many fellow Catholics as I can NOT to give money to these organizations until they clean up their act.

  23. Hugh you’ve obviously not understood what I said. Allow me to clarify.

    It is the Church’s official teaching that we, as human beings, have a responsibility to look after the wellbeing of the Earth. That is “Gospel” (if you want to use that word). It is most certainly not Church teaching that Global Warming is happening and is being caused by humans. Any person who is believes that it is Church teaching and would leave or join the Church because of such a decision is probably (1) in the Church for the wrong reasons anyway, and (2) needs to read up a bit on the Church’s teachings.

    However, you are right in saying that there is a “secular” consensus that Global Warming is happening. The overwhelming majority of reputable scientists, basing their findings off careful research, agree that Global Warming is occurring and that it is being caused by human beings. But then again, whether this information is secular or not is irrelevant – facts are facts. Even though the Pope is yet to publish the encyclical “The Sky is Blue” it doesn’t mean that the sky isn’t blue.

    When there is such an overwhelming scientific consensus that Global Warming is occurring it would be foolish for us not to pay attention and do something on the off-chance that maybe the majority of people who study this kind of thing for a living might be right. This group are by no means shoving anything down your throat, nor are they claiming you are a bad Catholic for disagreeing with them, they are simply saying that we, as humans, must endeavour to protect to the environment in the best way we can, in light of current scientific knowledge.

  24. "This group are by no means shoving anything down your throat, nor are they claiming you are a bad Catholic for disagreeing with them"

    Alex:

    from the Edmund Rice Centre's statement:

    [inter alia...]

    "a narrow understanding of the economy has taken priority over humanity" and an "economy that works for climate justice"

    "neglected "

    "ignore...voices"

    ***

    I see, so what you are saying is that there is no moral imputation whatsoever in A's accusation that: B placed his/her "narrow" understanding of economy over "humanity" and "justice", B was "negligent", and B ignored other people's voiced concerns?

    Thanks for clarifying, but, with respect, if this is what you are saying, it reflects rather more on your ability to interpret a statement than on the obvious thrust of the ERC statement itself.

  25. There is no consensus about anthropogenic climate change. What is essentially an empirical question is dominated by ideology.

    The best summation of evidence on the web I've heard.
    http://climatedebatedaily.com/

    "in a time of universal deceit, truth telling is a revolutionary act" Orwell
    http://www.populartechnology.net/

  26. Climate change? What are we talking about? One cannot change the climate. Maybe God would if you asked Him but I doubt it. More likely He'll let nature take its course.Pollution and CO2 have nothing to do with "Climate Change"( note the capitals). Even as a boy in Ireland in the 40s and 50S I can well
    remember the effects of so called"Global warming" although we used to call them Indian summers!. We used to be able to fit in 7 or 8 swims a day and get very bad sunburn.Very seldom over there now since slowly into and out of minor warmer and cooler changes in the late 70s and 80s. and beyond.And even then, in junior school we were well aware of the causal effects of the Sun and the change in the tilt of the earth's axis on our climate. This was basic junior science none of which is taught to day. It wouldn't be politically correct would it? If it were, teachers would be fired from their jobs as a result of pressure from the Grannies and other vested interest groups who depend on government grants and the ignorant Media sensationalism for their jobs. Amazing how so many good people have been conned!
    Now, I have a little task for all you commentators. Call it a competition. Would you all give a 25 word definition of Climate Change? Come on! Have a go. I challenge you!

  27. Hugh, the ERC statement on the Government’s actions is based on the fact that the Government accepts human-caused climate change is occurring, but is willing to risk long-term financial stability (and the livelihoods of those living on the islands mentioned in the article) to avoid any short-term economic disruption. They’re still not calling you a bad Catholic. To be a “bad Catholic” or a bad person you would have to acknowledge that human-caused climate change is occurring and still have no desire to do anything significant about it. The worst they would have called you is ignorant or uninformed, although they did neither.

    Also, when discussing a situation with two parties involved, it’s okay to use their names rather than “Party A” and “Party B” – especially when we know who you’re talking about.

  28. Alex, if I may be permitted to state the general case: when A accuses B of “choosing” to “ignore” other people’s concerns – ie, knowingly, wilfully averting one’s gaze - the clear implication is that A is thereby imputing moral blame to B. It’s not an accusation of some casual intellectual oversight, of a moment of invincible ignorance.

    Again, when A states that B is “prioritising” something over “humanity” and “justice”, the direct implication is that B is cold-heartedly ranking that something above that which should always be foremost: namely, people, and what is due to them. It’s a moral claim, and, beyond the purely logical level, the very tone and language of the ERC’s press release makes this obvious.

    Now, the fact that this current Government as you rightly say believes the AGW line is not the principal ground for the ERC’s accusation, but merely compounds the (alleged) guilt. Consider: the ERC imputes injustice, and anti-humane attitudes (“once again”) also to the Howard government, even though, as the ERC itself acknowledges disapprovingly, that regime was populated with climate sceptics.

    But since the ERC has tarred the sceptic Howard government with the same moral brush, what can we infer is the ERC’s attitude to those sincere sceptics in the wider community who might be welcoming the Rudd government’s change of heart on ETS? How could it consistently refrain from ascribing moral blame to them as well (including Catholics such as myself) ?

    It can’t, and it doesn’t. On the other hand, I don’t impute moral fault to the ERC for going beyond its brief in this way. Just confusion.

    No matter, it should be brought to account.

Bookmark and Share

More from this section

  1. A merry and meaningful Christmas from CathNews

    CathNews wish all our readers a Happy and Holy Christmas and a Peaceful and Prosperous New Year. We will be having a short break following our edition on Friday December 19 and will commence our daily publication on Monday January 5, 2009.

  2. Non-profit sector comes together

    Australia's non-profit sector will hold a "historic" meeting at Parliament House in Canberra today to discuss mechanisms for effective national representation of the nation's 700,000 non profit organisations.

  3. Mater Hospital land sold dollar for dollar

    Brisbane's Mater Health Services has sold, for one dollar, a 1.8 hectare block of land to the state government for the new Queensland Children's Hospital with an option to buy back the land in 90 years, also for a dollar.

  4. New prefect favours communion on tongue

    Incoming Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera has praised receiving communion on the tongue as recognising the real presence of Jesus Christ.

  5. Von Griffins in Sound of Music revival

    Sydney's Hills district has been alive with the sounds of the "Von Griffin" family preparing a Sound of Music revival with a 150 strong team including 100 former World Youth Day volunteers.

Church Resources provides a range of services for the Church and not-for-profit sector, including aggregating buying power for a wide range of products and services used by health, welfare, aged care, education and parish organisations. More »

Mass streamed live daily

From Our Lady of the Rosary Cathedral, Waitara, in the Broken Bay Diocese.
Weekdays live at 9.30am
Saturdays live 9.30am (followed by Adoration and Benediction)
Sundays live 9.30am
Click on this link at the appropriate time to connect.

Subscribe

To receive headlines from our faith-based news services, please subscribe below.

Email address

Newsletter


 

News Feed

Subscribe to the CathNews RSS feed to get the daily edition automatically delivered to you.
Subscribe to Faith Project RSS.

Daily Prayer

Gospel Verse for 26 May 2013
"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth..." [John 16:13]

View Podcast