Have Your Say 

Recent Comments

1. I disagree with Cardinal Pell. The Greens care for the planet - our ecosystems, climate, our livng environment and therefore the future wellbeinig of God's children on earth. In fact it has often been apparent that Christian Churches have not taken much responsiblity in this regard. Ecospirituality, for example, rarely gets a mention in mainstream worship.

   Posted By: Marjorie, Brisbane

2. We must put our pride aside and be one in Christ. We are strong in the Lord and no one can defeat us. So I say to our Cardinal and to Peter Jensen put your hands together and let's defeat the enemy. Christ is our head.

   Posted By: Lilian Schmid - Sydney

3. So through the looking glass we go with policies that demonise refugees, dehumanise workers, celebrate the market, wreak havoc upon the natural environment, institutionalise dependence upon charity rather than structural change, enshrine sectarian privilege over and against the rights of the larger community, and criminalise sexual diversity, are all 'Christian', but challenges to these (and many other similar) are 'anti-Christian'.

   Posted By: MJ, Camperdown.

4. Totally agree with Marjorie. I'm a card-carrying Green supporter and see the emphasis and respect for the ecosystems as a continuance of the beautiful hymns to God as Creator by the wonderful St Francis of Assisi.

   Posted By: Marie H, Brisbane Q'ld

5. We will change nothing in the political forum if we do not know what our local member stands for, and what they will vote for/not vote for.
   We need to know that before an election, it is useless moaning and groaning after the event which is what happens.
   Get the candidates to address the parish/school, and take questions which are written before, that
   stops time wasting. Vote accordingly.

   Posted By: David. Wollongong.

6. Don't you think it's time for us to engage in some constructive Catholic action?
   Time for rank and file Catholics to join the Greens and help transform some of their policies we consider dodgy? Isn't this how Bob Santamaria and the Groupers transformed the ALP and defeated comunism?
   Cardinal Pell says 'their programme is explicitly anti-Christian' but doesn't have to stay that way.

   Posted By: Joe Duffy, Sunshine Coast

7. MJ: Y have given an excellent summary of the paradox we face when the church leaders are more worried about one party with one particular policy sensitive to some Christians, but not worried about the others with policies that contradict Christian biblical ethics.
   I presume the parable of the Last Judgement (Matt. 25:42) tells us what God most looks for, and the “goats” cop it for “I was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick, in prison and you did not feed, drink, clothe, welcome, visit me etc”.
   Inhumane treatment of asylum seekers/refugees looks to be quite contrary to the stern expression of God’s expectation of us.
   I too agree with Marjorie’s comments about ecospirituality. I think St Paul’s “restore all things in Christ” in Eph 1.10 is an ecological statement. It would be nice to have heard these things expressed by our church leaders.

   Posted By: Boutros Neru, Eden NSW

8. I agree with Cardinal Pell. Take a closer look at the official policies of the various parties. The Greens support abortion, euthanasia, the removal of exemptions to the anti-discrimination act.
   The Greens might well care for the Earth but they have a less than caring attitude toward human beings. I would urge Catholics and other Christians to carefully read the Greens' policies before choosing who to vote for.

   Posted By: Luke Reid, Katoomba NSW

9. It'd be helpful if the Cardinal would tell us what it is specifically within Greens policy that he believes to be explicitly anti-Christian.
   

   Posted By: Dr Frank Donovan, Woodend, Victoria

10. I agree wholeheartedly with His Eminence Cardinal Pell.

    Posted By: R.B.Meppem Sydney Australia

11. I don't have much time for lobbies of any kind. If people want to change the culture and morality of a Party, they should join it and do their work from within.
    From probably the second century onward, Christians 'infiltrated' Roman society and its institutions so successfully that 'persecutions' were very sporadic and short lived because the Imperial government realised that it could not function without them. Constantine knew this well.
    As for Ecospirituality/theology, we might do well to study the work of the late Fr Thomas Berry CP.
    His 12 Principles might enlighten all of us on the sacredness of God's Creation and human responsibility towards it.

    Posted By: David Timbs ALBION. Vic.

12. Exchanging a Green bogey for a Red one will please only the placardists, not the thinkers. It is part of the Us and Them fortress mentality that closes off dialogue and cripples growth.The days when an archbishop could wave his staff and send his flock off to vote in a certain way are long gone, and I am sure the admirable Cardinal would be the first to admit that. Certainly he is entitled to sound an alarm over Green policies that personally offend him. They also offend Alan Jones, Ray Hadley, Neil Mitchell and the cardinal's fellow newspaper columnist Piers Ackerman. There are several Green policies that are questionable, but the doctrine of God-botherers Rudd and Abbott are also a cause for concern. Both seem to be under the illusion that people do not really want to work, that the welfare state is an evil dragon, and that mentally ill people can be forced into work by denying them pensions. Their answer to Ageing Australia is to force people to fund their own retirement. Many services for the unemployed and disabled are privatized. Ask the PM's wife. She should know. She made a fortune out of it. Mr Abbott will retire on a life pension beyond the dreams of avarice. So will Mr Rudd.
    I look forward to the Cardinal issuing a warning about Worship of the Grand Share Market and Private Superannuation in the Sky.
    What is necessary is dialogue with the Greens to transform well intended policies, not to parade them as anti-Christian monsters hammering on the doors of the Citadel.

    Posted By: Cliff Baxter

13. It'd be helpful if the Cardinal would tell us what exactly he has endorsed, promoted, advocated and actioned toward saving the environment. We are in danger of eliminating ourselvres as a species.
    Perhaps Cardinal Pell thinks it will happen without organised political intervention. The Greens have captured the real feelings of people who care about having a planet on which to pray, worship and be Christian.
    We await Cardinal Pell's endorsement of proactive, dramatic, immediate, long term action so that future generations have a future.... how about a Green Chapter of the Catholic Church with a progressive Bishop leading the way?

    Posted By: MJB Melbourne

14. Both of the major parties' response to asylum seekers can hardly be called Christian. Why does not Cardinal Pell refer to this? - Camberwell, Vic

    Posted By: Terry O'Neill

15. If ecospirituality is your issue, forget the greens and try this http://www.catholicearthcare.org.au/.
    As for Greens being anti-christian here's a link to their policies website http://greens.org.au/policies
    Independent education (which is where Catholic education fits) would no longer be funded at federal level. Every child must have two full years at pre-school before attending school -this is patently anti-family; encouraging children to leave home as young as possible - again anti family; legalisation of currently illicit drugs; population control thorugh compulsory artificial contraception, same sex marriage, euthenasia, abortion and the list goes on.
    And economically they'd have us where Greece, Portugal and Spain are as I type this. The list would go on forever.
    'Their program is explicitly anti-Christian' is a remarkably reserved statement. Their program is patently evil.

    Posted By: Michael at Cranebrook

16. When it comes to Australian politics it seems to me that we have some poor options at the moment.
    But when it comes to the Greens I agree with Luke Reid - the devil is in the detail. Ecospirituality sounds beautiful and caring, but it should not come at the expense of humanity, and people appear to come a distant second with the Greens.
    As a former Greens voter I urge you to be wary and take a closer look at their policies. They're just not a healthy option and we should travel this road at our peril.

    Posted By: PEI Wide Bay

17. Where are the facts, Cardinal Pell? The Greens policies are formulated, as all parties' policies should be, in the context of the constitutional framework of the secular state.
    The secular state and religions are not inimical. Indeed, the secular state provides the best protection against the religious and sect-based tyranny.
    The Greens specifically recognise religious differences "that must be taken into account in order to ensure equal rights for all." Their policy abhors discrimination in immigration and in the workplace on the grounds of religion, and asserts that all people, regardless of religion, 'have equal rights economically, socially and culturally'.

    Posted By: Jim McDonald Sunshine Beac h

18. Thanks to Luke Reid for his rational description of the Green's unchristian agenda. No wonder Cardinal Pell is worried about them.
    Beautiful platitudes about caring for the planet are ultimately shallow, or hypocritical, or even evil, unless one is willing put the life of every (how I wish for italics) human being above every other thing on earth.
    Joe Duffy's idea of changing the Greens from within has merit, although Labor by its very name is a party for humans, not lesser beings, thus making it much easier for Christians to support it in the first place. However, I think any attempted takeover would face some stiff opposition - especially from those who call themselves Catholics, perhaps?

    Posted By: Paul Keen, Dalby

19. One of the policies that the Greens have is to withdraw funding from all non-government schools. Our Catholic schools would be very much at risk. While the Greens may appear to care for our planet, they have many policies that are at odds with Catholic teaching and very much anti-Christian, as Cardinal Pell has said.

    Posted By: Peter K, Sydney

20. I once eagerly read Ian Plimer's notable literary work Telling Lies for God, now I am waiting to read his book on the Multinational Mining Industry and Climate Denial - that I'm told will be entitled Lost without a Moral Compass.

    Posted By: Tony Backhouse, Narraweena NSW

21. You can not support the greens and be a Catholic. Its quite simple really. The Greens have a pro-death policy in their support for abortion and therefore no Catholic can in good conscience vote them. To do so would be a mortal sin and it would put the blood of tens of thousands of murdered babies on your hands. This one is a no brainer.

    Posted By: Joe, Sydney

22. Well said, both Cliff B and Jim McD.
    Joe, re your comment about not being possible to support the Greens re abortion and also be a Catholic.
    Australian law, in the various states, already permit abortions under prescribed conditions. In line with your comment, legislators from mainstream parties have already enacted these laws so that makes it look like Catholics couldn't vote for any party at all.

    Posted By: Marie H, Brisbane Q'ld

23. Perhaps Cardinal Pell would like to reflect on the fact that the first Greens Senator (Jo Vallentine) is a Quaker, and the second (Christabel Chamarette) is an Anglican (and former chair of the Anglican Social Responsibilities Commission in WA).
    The Greens' do not have an 'anti-Christian' program, they have a secular program - the two are quite different. Perhaps their agenda does not suit Cardinal Pell, but that is not an excuse for abuse.

    Posted By: Theo Mackaay

24. Theo Mackaay: when independent schools have their funding withdrawn under the guise of equality for all, then secularism has already morphed to become its own anti-Christian ideology.
    Most Catholics accept that the natural order puts God first, humans second and other created things third. Only in this order can the world grow and the Kingdom come. However, the Greens inverse this order. Their vision places the created environment above all. Humanity is subject to the environment and God is relegated last -barely tolerated (if at all) and treated like a concept needing to be controlled.
    Hence when the environment suffers, and it does, then humanity must be curbed even by drastic means such as population capping, abortion, euthanasia, etc, where some become more equal then others. This is Green stewardship.
    When it comes to people, almost anything is fine because individual choice is a right and diversity is celebrated, even though this goes against the fundamental aim of dialogue: finding common ground. Society cannot thrive when its people have little in common.
    I have significant concerns with the major parties as well, but at the very least they (mostly) retain the natural order.
    We could learn a lot about environmental care from the Aborigines, and I’d love to see greater attention paid to the methods of Masanobu Fukuoka.
    But the Greens would lead us on a more perilous path, and frankly I agree with Michael at Cranebrook that some of their policies are patently evil, albeit disguised as good.

    Posted By: PEI Wide Bay

25. The Greens may often support the right thing for the wrong reasons regarding asylum seekers, but their asylum seeker policy has nothing to do with humanitarianism, much less Christian principles.
    They support open borders combined with ferocious anti-human anti-natalism purely for the purpose of destroying Christianity in Australia, and destroying the sovereignty and national existence of Australia itself.
    Unfortunately many unthinking people are deceived by the Greens' carefully contrived superficial 'soft and cuddly' appearance. The Greens don't care for the planet and they certainly don't care for its inhabitants.
    And by the way the Church and especially her monastic orders were promoting 'care for the planet', i.e. wise stewardship of God's creation, for centuries before it became a fashionable bandwagon for politicians to jump on to.

    Posted By: Peter G Thornleigh, NSW

26. Marie H: The Church has repeatedly taught that in an election where no candidate completely opposes the legality of abortion, a voter not only may, but must, vote for the candidate who would enact or maintain the most restrictions on abortion.
    In the Australian preferential voting system, this means that voters are morally obliged to number the Greens in the last place. The Greens are the only major party which has an official policy of removing all restrictions on abortion. The other major parties all favour at least some restrictions on abortion.

    Posted By: Peter G Thornleigh

27. As a Green voter with an interest in all religion, I often stop to wonder, 'what would Jesus have done?' in relation to many of the policies of supposedly Christian leaders. Then of course there's always the separation of Church and State.

    Posted By: Steve Brech

28. Peter G: According to your line on the Greens, it is in this country's national security interests that ASIO should immediately arrest the Green Party's leadership and charge them with sedition.
    There is a dock in Canberra's High Court set aside for those accused of treason. I don't think it has been used yet.
    As for your response to Marie H, you clearly identify yourself as a moral relativist on abortion. You argue that voters are morally obliged to put the Greens last but are encouraged, even by Church authorities (no references given!) to tick the boxes of Parties which allow abortion but with tight restrictions.
    Peter G, if you are a moral absolutist on this issue then it would be, according to you logic, immoral to vote for any of the above.

    Posted By: David Timbs ALBION. Vic

29. Cardinal Pell is presumably worried about such issues as the Greens supposed 'extreme' position on abortion.
    The Greens, Labor and Liberal parties have identical positions on abortion; namely that the government should provide legal abortion to women who seek it.
    And it is a good policy. Let's remember that as health minister, Tony Abbott personally oversaw the funding of abortions, and Peter Costello voted for the indroduction of RU486.
    Will the Cardinal now at least be consistent and say that the Liberal Party's agenda is therefore 'explicitly anti-Christian'.

    Posted By: Miranda, Northcote

• » Advertise in CathNews

Email to Friend Please fill out the following details (fields marked with a * are mandatory):
Send To Email Address*:
Send To Name *:
Sent By Email Address*:
Sent By Name *:
Text to include in email:
Captcha validation:	please enter the code above:

^ Page Top

Comment on this article

More from this section

1. Viability of NSW ethics classes in question

   A Wollongong diocesan official has stressed that training catechists to ensure they conduct engaging and effective classes is critical, adding that it is uncertain that proposed ethics classes in NSW state schools will be adequately resourced.

2. Jesuit Refugee Service says don't forget urban refugees

   Jesuit Refugee Service has reminded governments that urban refugees share all of the challenges of the urban poor, but often face additional barriers due to their uncertain legal status and lack of documentation.

3. Intolerance to Asperger's could force boy out of school

   Alleged parental and student intolerance could force a bullied Melbourne Catholic school boy with Asperger's syndrome to change schools.

4. Hobart archbishop says euthanasia diverts care efforts

   Archbishop Adrian Doyle of Hobart has said that spending taxpayer's money on developing euthanasia legislation is at the cost of other care initiatives.

5. Wilson says Thomas More looked beyond 'terrible things' that happened in the Church

   Archbishop Philip Wilson, President of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, has told a Canberra forum that the inspiration of St Thomas More gives the Church strength to face challenges when things go wrong.