Thursday, July 28, 2011

Green Climate Change Extremists Like Communist Totalitarians


Miranda Devine

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 at 09:17pm
IN a serendipitous coincidence of timing, in the space of two hours this week Australians were afforded a sharp, momentary insight into the two opposing ideological mindsets that are competing for the soul of our nation.
In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming.
Almost simultaneously, in a Hobart casino, Greens Senator Christine Milne was unilaterally announcing, on ABC TV’s Q&A show, that the government would be conducting an inquiry into that section of the Australian media that she finds “extreme(ly) bias(ed) against action on climate change”.
Milne’s every illiberal pronouncement was greeted with applause by an audience that seemed full of tree huggers, bearded public servants and other recipients of government largesse, about the only growth industry left in Tasmania.
Klaus, on the other hand, was speaking to economic liberals and climate change realists invited by the Institute of Public Affairs, the Melbourne-based free market think tank.
“Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over,” Klaus said.
“I feel threatened now, not by global warming - I don’t see any - (but) by the global warming doctrine which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature.”
Klaus, 70, who has twice been elected Czech president and is its former prime minister, is one of the most important figures in post-communist Europe. His experiences under totalitarian rule have made him exquisitely alert to the erosion of democratic freedoms.
He said environmentalists have been arguing for decades that we should reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, using various farcical ploys from the exhaustion of natural resources to the threat of “imminent mass poverty and starvation for billions”.
He said those same environmentalists shamelessly talk now about dangerous global warming: “They don’t care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced.”
Global warming alarmists “want to change us”, he said.
“They want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they believe they know what is good for us.
“They are not interested in climate. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. What is in danger is freedom, not the climate.”
He described the parallels he sees between the loss of freedom under communism and the new global warming doctrine. Under communism, “politics dictated the economics and dictated life”.
“Our main ambition during the dark communist days was to change that and create an autonomous society and autonomous economic system with only a marginal role played by politics.
“I am sorry to discover now politics dictates the economics again. And the global warming debate is the same story (in which) politicians dictate the issue.”
He said because of his experience of communism, “maybe I am oversensitive”.
“I am afraid that some of the people who spend their lives in a free society don’t appreciate sufficiently all the issues connected with freedom. So my oversensitivity is like an alarm clock warning about the potential development, which I am really afraid of.”
With Klaus’ words ringing in my ears I went home and watched a recording of Q&A.
There Milne was equating those decent Australians who have been exercising their democratic right to protest at anti-carbon tax rallies with the crazed gunman who killed 76 people in Norway.
“It has been pretty shocking around Australia over the last month or two, particularly to the carbon price. And I think when you look at what happened in Norway ... the English Defence League has got its own links here in Australia to the Australian Defence League, it is real. It is happening,” she said.
Coupled with her view that the voices of those in the media who are against the carbon tax ought to be investigated, it was a chilling echo of the attack on freedom Klaus had only just warned against.
The speed at which the arrogance of the Greens has grown since they entered a power-sharing arrangement with the Gillard government almost a year ago, and the shambolic acquiescence of the government to their demands, has caught us unawares. It has lulled us into accepting as normal some remarkably illiberal ideas.
For instance, there is the drastic reshaping of the economy by the unpromised carbon tax, and its six unaccountable new bureaucracies.
There is the media inquiry flagrantly designed by the government and Greens to punish only the media organisation whose newspapers (such as this one) have most embarrassed them and exposed their mistakes.
There is the idea that companies which create wealth and jobs for Australia are evil “big polluters”, and that our most important industry, mining, should be saddled with a “super-profits tax”.
There is the idea that there is something so wrong with private school funding that an inquiry is needed, and that the Greens policy of 30 per cent death duties on estates over $5 million is perfectly reasonable. We are like frogs in boiling water.
Even Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens this week blamed the “increasingly bitter political debate” for declining consumer confidence.
No, the bitterness of the debate comes from the fact people feel their way of life is being compromised by a government which is a rule unto itself and seems to believe it knows what is good for us. The carbon tax is a factor, but the single most unsettling event was the live cattle trade fiasco, which is still unresolved.
It prompted the feeling that if the government can suddenly and arbitrarily stop a legitimate thriving industry in its tracks based on a one-sided television show, with no right of reply, then what can it do to me?
That is a very sobering thought. It is what stops people shopping, and it is what makes the debate bitter.
The more government turns a deaf ear to the people, the louder the people shout.
And then, what is the reaction of an undemocratic government but to find ways to muzzle dissent?

Have Your Say

Show Oldest | Newest first Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >

Miranda, your “frog in heating water” is a perfect analogy for our present situation. The current normalization of autocratic and undemocratic government behavior has never been witnessed before in Australia’s history. Its idiotic acceptance by 25% of our citizens is even more disturbing. As a former Labor voter, I have always been conscious of not applying the “red under the bed” slogan to every to every left of center proposal, however, there is now no doubt that the Greens and the Labor’s agendas are identical to that of both the National Socialists and the Communists. We must fight this treachery with every means at our disposal.
Old Labor of NSW (Reply)
Wed 27 Jul 11 (11:04pm)

The Greens are a totalitarian Party who have just over 10% of the vote and to whom Gillard has not only given legitimacy but power.
To hear Christine Milne speak one must believe she was running the show .
How do we know what other extreme promises Gillard made in order to become Prime Minister?
Gillard although not obliged could have met with President Klaus but he does not agree with her ideology and surely would have shown how ignorant she is about science and people.
I do fear the greens will be successful in getting the weak and politically suicidal Gillard to try and shut down the Media.
Look at the NBN in the hands of Senator Conroy who wants censorship of the Internet and protection from the Media as they expose the cost and frailty of the NBN.
We will need to be on our guard and willing to back the free Press.
Maggie of Qld. (Reply)
Wed 27 Jul 11 (11:20pm)

We can now see that a combination of Communist Greens and Socialist Labor are wrecking the Australia that we grew up in. The damage will be irrepairable as we begin to resemble struggling eastern European countries.
Last_chance_at_free_speech of Once Great Australia (Reply)
Wed 27 Jul 11 (11:22pm)
....Taken from:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/greens_turning_up_the_heat_on_freedoms/

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Jesus Christ Raised Metaphysics to a New Level: Bonaventure

Bonaventure's Metaphysics Of The Good

by Ilia Delio

The high middle ages were a time of change and transition, marked by the religious discovery of the universe and a new awareness of the position of the human person in the universe. In the 12th century, a Dionysian awakening coupled with the rediscovery of Plato's Timaeus gave rise to a new view of the cosmos.(1) Louis Dupre has described the Platonic revival of that century as the turn to a "new self-consciousness."(2) In view of the new awakening of the 12th century, the question of metaphysical principles that supported created reality, traditionally the quest of the philosophers, began to be challenged by Christian writers. Of course it was not as if any one writer set out to overturn classical metaphysics; however, the significance of the Incarnation posed a major challenge. It may seem odd that a barely educated young man could upset an established philosophical tradition, but Francis of Assisi succeeded in doing so. As Dupre points out, Francis's devotion to Jesus of Nazareth, the individual, opened up a new perspective on the unique particularity of the person. If the Image of all images is an individual, then the primary significance of individual form no longer consists in disclosing a universal reality beyond itself. Indeed, the universal itself ultimately refers to the singular. With Francis of Assisi a religious revolution began, in which the ontological priority of the universal would eventually be overthrown.(3)
The person who grasped the metaphysical implications of Francis's christocentric spirituality was the theologian and Minister General, Bonaventure of Bagnoregio (ca. 1217-1274). Trained at the University of Paris, Bonaventure knew the writings of Plato and Aristotle quite well. The main source of his Neoplatonism, however, was not the Neoplatonists per se but the writings of Augustine and the Pseudo-Dionysius from whom he derived the notion of God as the self-diffusive good.
Bonaventure's most outstanding achievement, which has been virtually overlooked, is his development of a theological metaphysics. As Zachary Hayes has shown, Bonaventure's theology of the Word enabled him to concentrate on the Word of God as the principle of universal intelligibility.(4) Identifying metaphysics as the task of unifying all of finite reality to one first principle who is origin, exemplar, and final end, Bonaventure perceived the quest of the philosopher to be fulfilled when the exemplar of all else is identified with the one divine essence.(5) For Bonaventure, the exemplar is Jesus Christ, and only in light of exemplarity is the deepest nature of created reality unlocked for the philosopher. Without Christian revelation the philosopher is unable to reduce reality to a first principle.
....
Taken from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_2_60/ai_n28733514/

Peter Kreeft Interviewed About the Philosophy of Jesus



View video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpavoVNEC5g

....
 
Peter Kreeft, teacher of philosophy at Boston College, has written numerous, what one might call 'philosophically soft', books, for the general public (at least those not afraid of the word philosophy). The fact that he makes philosophy fun and interesting does not make what he says any less true. This book came up on a different thread, and a request followed for a summation of it, and in what sense Jesus was a philosopher, thusly............ Kreeft says there four primary philosophical questions; (1) What is? What is real? Especially, what is most real? (2) How can we know what is real, and especially the most real? (3) Who are we, who want to know the real? "Know Thyself". (4) What should we be, how should we live, to be more real? These are questions about being, truth, self and goodness, called in philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical anthropology and ethics. Kreeft says the logical order of the questions is: we must know something real before we can know how we know it; and we must first know who we are before we can know what is good for us. Our ethics is based on our metaphysics. For Kreeft, the answer to all these questions for Christians, is Christ, Jesus is God's philosophy. So what was the metaphysics of Jesus? (as a Jew) The universe had a beginning, created by God. This is very distinct from Hinduism where the universe eminates from God (Brahman), is part of the being of God, therefore, the world is less real. How do we know this? Judaism is a revealed religion, unknown God showing himself. God is unique, perfect, good, righteous, holy and just. Man can be less real, not conforming to the character of God, or more real, the meaning of life is to be holy, to be a saint, conforming to the character of God. Morality flows from metaphysics because goodness flows from God. God reveals himself perfectly in Jesus. His use of "I AM" directly connects himself with God who revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush, as I Am who I Am, or I will be who I will be. Jesus shows the perfect image, the fullness of what man was designed to be. We can choose the good because God has shown us who he is in Jesus, and who we can be in Jesus. But we cannot fulfill our destiny on our own. We must acquire a new set of DNA, so to speak, a new genetic structure. This is the new birth in Christ. Kreeft quotes the Christian philosopher Gabriel Marcel, "sanctity is the true introduction to ontology". We can be more real or less real. The most real human persons are saints, they are what we are all designed to be. Therefore, the study of sanctity is the key to the study of being. The study of sanctity is the key to metaphysics. This is only possible through Jesus Christ. Jesus puts the ball in our court by asking, "What do you want?", just as he did his first disciples. Only by answering this question, can Jesus answer. That's the answer to the first question, the first third of the book. Kreeft then moves on to the epistemology of Jesus. He starts with the question of Pilate: What is truth?, and what we must know. Quoting Pascal, Kreeft says there are two things we must know, who we are and who God is. The bad news is that God dwells in inaccessible light (also God's answer to Job). The good news is that: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known" (John 1:18). Kreeft says that Christ is the ultimate epistemological revelation of ultimate metaphysical reality, Christ is the key to epistemology. Watch how this unfolds in the Gospels, watch how Jesus works. He does much more than simply know the truth and teach it. Jesus is epistemology come alive.
Taken from:
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43851/26515305/The_Philosophy_of_Jesus,_Peter_Kreeft

Monday, July 4, 2011

The Philosophy of Jesus



Amazingly, no one ever seems to have looked at Jesus as a philosopher, or his teaching as philosophy. Yet no one in history has ever had a more radically new philosophy, or made more of a difference to philosophy, than Jesus. He divided all human history into two, into "B.C." and "A.D."; and the history of philosophy is crucial to human history, since philosophy is crucial to man; so how could He not also divide philosophy?


This book (1) looks at Jesus as a complete human being (as well as divine), therefore
also as a philosopher; (2) looks at philosophy as Jesus' pre-modern contemporaries did, as a wisdom, a world-view, and a way of life rather than as a super-science (Descartes, Hegel) or as a servant-science (Hobbes, Hume); and (3) looks at philosophy in light of Jesus rather than at Jesus in light of philosophy. It explores the consequences of Etienne Gilson's point that when St. John brought Christianity and Greek philosophy into contact and identified the Messiah the Jews had most deeply sought with the logos that the Greeks had most deeply sought, nothing happened to Christ but something happened to the logos.
This book explores the most radical revolution in the history of philosophy, the
differences Jesus made to metaphysics (the philosophy of being), to epistemology (the philosophy of knowing), to anthropology (the philosophy of man), and to philosophical ethics and politics.
And, besides, it has the greatest ending of any philosophy book in a century.

St. Augustine's Press
 
Contents
Introduction 1: Who Is It For?
Introduction 2: How Is Jesus a Philosopher?
Introduction 3: What Are the Four Great Questions of Philosophy?
I. Jesus’ Metaphysics (What is real?)* Jesus’ Jewish Metaphysics* Jesus’ New Name for God* The Metaphysics of Love* The Moral Consequences of Metaphysics* Sanctity as the Key to Ontology
* The Metaphysics of “I AM”
II. Jesus’ Epistemology (How do we know what is real?)
III. Jesus’ Anthropology (Who are we who know what is real?)
IV. Jesus’ Ethics (What should we be to be more real?)* Christian Personalism: Seeing “Jesus only”* Jesus and Legalism* Jesus and Relativism* Jesus and the Secret of Moral Success* Jesus and Sex* Jesus and Social Ethics: Solidarity
* Jesus and Politics: Is He Left or Right?
Conclusion
Index
Jesus as a Jewish Philosopher by Matthew Del Nevo An appraisal of Peter Kreeft, The Philosophy of Jesus (St. Augustine's Press, 2007) This is a popularly written book about the philosophy of Jesus rather than the Jesus of philosophy — at least that is the intention. The book scopes the philosophy of Jesus in terms of the primary questions of ontology, epistemology, anthropology and ethics, respectively: What is being? What can I know? Who is man? What ought I to do? The style is very direct, and what is lost in subtlety is gained in clarity. The book gets off to a good start but increasingly confuses the philosophy of Jesus with the theology of the Catholic Church as represented by recent official documentation. The book is divided into four sections aligned with the four prime questions. There is a subject index and a scriptural index. So what does Kreeft make of Jesus' philosophy? First of all Kreeft makes it clear that he does not occupy that ostensibly neutral or supposedly objective position struck up by many in philosophy of religions discourse. Kreeft's presumption in writing about Jesus' philosophy from a Christian point of view is not apologetic or polemical, rather he understands, rightly in this reader's view, that Jesus' teaching and person (like Socrates') present matters of intellectual substance that have to be engaged philosophically if they are to be engaged properly. He believes that Jesus' philosophy is not only of historical philosophical importance in the history of ideas, but still has a critical relevancy today. As a Christian he is in a good position to expound this, just as someone who knows the Greek is in a better position to expound Plato. On Jesus' metaphysics or ontology in Chapter 1 Kreeft rightly accentuates its Jewishness and in this regard the uniqueness of the Jewish take on reality in which God, world and humankind are seen as ontologically other and not merged, submerged or seen as intrinsic to one another. It is a philosophy of otherness and difference. Kreeft could have been more definite about this point. The threefold difference of God, world and humankind demarcates Jewish reality from pagan reality which does not mark the ontological otherness of these three so absolutely, if at all. The Jewish take on reality is different from that of other religions and non-religions (pantheism, panentheism, henotheism, ontologism, atheism, prophetism etc.), and Kreeft touches on this. Kreeft tends to describe Jesus' metaphysics theologically rather than out of the Jewish world of Jesus. Kreeft speaks of a metaphysics of love, but this does not capture the links back, in rabbinic thought, between God, world and humankind which can be encapsulated by naming Creation, Revelation and Redemption, as Rosenzweig has famously put it: Jesus has both a teaching on these links back and a personal stance that is re-creative, redemptive and revelatory. It is in this kind of metaphysical context that Jesus speaks of love. Kreeft argues his case for Jesus' metaphysics of love from the Name of God, but he is incorrect in saying that Jesus calling God 'abba' (father, papa) was revolutionary. It is not in the Hebrew Scriptures as such, although the Fatherhood of God is, but speaking to God familiarly as abba was common in rabbinic tradition. What is revolutionary about Jesus' philosophy is that he said you did not have to be Jewish to speak to God like this, or even religious! Kreeft rightly asserts that everything else follows from Jesus' metaphysics. In epistemology, what we must know is ourselves, the world and God. There are degrees of knowledge and the key is wisdom. Again Jesus not only taught in the Jewish wisdom tradition but personified it. As Kierkegaard wrote in Practice in Christianity, 'the only explanation of truth is to be it.' Jesus' philosophy is in that sense 'existential'. Our knowledge will increase with our sanctification of the Name of God, and of the world and of ourselves. Kreeft rightly refers to prayer as an important key to knowledge, allowing us to draw close and relate to that which we need to know, rather than just to 'know about'. Jesus' anthropology revolves around the imago Dei, the instruction that we are made in the image and likeness of God. Each person is infinitely other than God, but bears God's image and likeness in one major respect: each human person is absolutely one and only. Upon this is founded human dignity. Jesus' anthropology is one which seeks to serve human dignity and increase it upon the face of the earth, for God's glory. Jesus' ethics revolves around the imitatio Dei, the imitation of God, which in Christianity becomes the imitation of Christ. Kreeft argues that we have to be 'little Christs', which I take it has to do with becoming all that God has called us to be, individually and as a people of God. The idea is that we each need to be personally responsible for our share in collective destiny, which is with God, to 'mend the world' (tikkun olam). Jesus' own philosophy was to do the Father's will, which he did, and which he enjoined us to do, and in which prayer and personal wholeness is the key to knowledge and true freedom. In the second half of the book, in these chapters on anthropology and ethics, Kreeft's tendency to move from the philosophy of Jesus to the theology of the Church, becomes more pronounced. This shift will lose many readers not predisposed in like manner to Kreeft. The problem goes back to Chapter 1 on metaphysics which gets a little lost in a Thomistic interpretation of the Creed, which is an anachronistic discussion. But this kind of anachronism is stepped up in Chapter 3 on Jesus' anthropology. This chapter starts with the idea of Jesus as perfect Man and perfect God, which is Greek philosophy, not Jesus' philosophy. Kreeft then takes up the anthropological question in terms of the Socratic dictum, 'know thyself'. This chapter shifts into apologetics with a justification of Mary as the Mother of God, Catholic dogma rather than Jesus' philosophy. Chapter 4 on Jesus' ethics also shifts over into apologetics with an argument that ends with the assertion that, 'we are to worship the Eucharist'; again, Catholic dogma, rather than Jesus' philosophy. Traditionally Catholic Christians have taught that philosophy is a 'handmaid' to philosophy. This is preferable to the Protestant response which was to try and expunge philosophy from theology, which gave them ideology. My view, the view of most philosophers, would be that any theology is no better than its philosophy. Traditionally Christian thought, that is, Christian interpretation, has depended on Greek philosophy, more precisely on combinations of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Jesus' philosophy — whatever it was — was Jewish, rabbinic, in the sense we read about in the Talmud, which reflects the oral tradition of Jesus' Jewish world. Jesus' philosophy was not Platonic or Aristotelian. The problem for Kreeft, which his book bears out, is that philosophy for him is by definition non-Jewish. There is a long quotation from C. S. Lewis in the Preface to show that Jesus' style followed broadly along Aristotelian lines as found in the Poetics and the Analytics. But Jesus' style was halakhic and aggadic. Kreeft asserts in the Preface that it is not the style but the substance of Jesus' philosophy that interests him, his answers. Jewish religious philosophy has always revolved around the question, though, not the answer; on answers it is pluralistic. Catholicism by contrast is about answers and is autocratically assertive about its own answers, both to its own global constituency and with regard to other denominational points of view. Kreeft needs to cross over from a culture of answers in which he is steeped to a culture of the question, in which Jesus was steeped. Moreover, in achieving the relevancy of Jesus' philosophy another bridge has to be crossed from an autocratic 'one answer fits all' culture to a plural culture. For we live in an age of philosophies, a pluralist age in which by definition there cannot be one overarching theological metaphysic because that would mean one underlying dominant philosophy, which is simply not the case in our time. Therefore we need to situate Jesus' philosophy in terms of an age of interpretation if we are going as Kreeft intends, to gauge its enormous transformative power. Ultimately the lack of distinction between the philosophy of Jesus and Catholic dogma lets the book down. Kreeft has taken the ecclesiastical future of Jesus as the cue, rather than the Jewish background, Jesus' own world and the greatness of rabbinic thinking in particular. In an age of interpretation when a lot of metaphysical theology is suspect, archaic and unengaging, the project of re-discovering Jesus' philosophy is important as a basis for Christian self-understanding, and then for pre-understanding in philosophical argument. Jesus' philosophy was certainly questioning and critically formulated in a rabbinic manner and it aimed to be foundational for the philosophical task of bringing heaven down to earth, a prophetic task in which humanity becomes all that God meant it to be.
© Matthew Del Nevo 2007 E-mail: mdelnevo@bbi.catholic.edu.au Dr Matthew Del Nevo Senior Lecturer in Theology and Christian Spirituality Broken Bay Institute Pennant Hills New South Wales Australia

On Conscience and Conscience Formation



by

Frits Albers Ph.B


 
[The AMAIC was involved with its own ‘Submissions’ to the Oceanic Synod in December 1998. This article by Frits Albers, co-founder of the AMAIC, recalls for us the sad state of affairs in the Australian Church at this time, which Paul Brazier, too, was then so energetically addressing. – Editor].

INTRODUCTION:
CONSCIENCE AND THE AUSTRALIAN BISHOPS
Even before the Oceanic Synod in December 1998 got off the ground, the Holy See wasted no time in using the opportunity of pointing out to the assembled Australian bishops the serious defects that over the years had developed within the Catholic Church in their country, affecting the Faith of millions of individual Catholics. For all future generations it will remain a shameful indictment of the Australian Episcopal Conference that, in the second half of the twentieth century, the initiative had to come from Rome, and that the Holy See had to acquaint the bishops of Australia with the well-nigh impossible situation that was still going on unchecked, because the shepherds of the flock were either not aware of what was going on, or did not have the courage to use their authority to stem the tide.
The “Statement of Conclusions”, drawn up after a four-day meeting between representatives of six Sacred Congregations of the Roman Curia and a group of Australian bishops, clearly deals with:


  • a “Crisis of Faith” within the Church in Australia. It points to
  • a “Crisis of Christology”,
  • a “profound change of anthropology”,
  • a concerted effort to “raise the individual conscience to an absolute”.

Following on from these profound changes in Catholic Faith, the Statementidentifies:

  • the existence of “great problems to Christian morality”,
  • indifference to the poor,
  • racial prejudice and violence,
  • abortion,
  • euthanasia,
  • the legitimation of homosexual relationships and other immoral forms of sexual activity.

And if all this was not enough, the ‘Statement’ has uncovered the existence of

  • Problems in Ecclesiology” [clearly a matter of ‘one ‘church’ or faith being as good as another’] “that flow from the above-mentioned uncertainties concerning God and Jesus Christ”.

In a word: these are defects so obvious and profound, that every bishop could have noticed them from his own observation, or at least could have become aware of their existence if only he had believed the thousands of letters through which good Catholics had never ceased to bring these defects to his attention.
Now one thing has become very clear after all these years of utter chaos and confusion: If the bishops and priests of Australia after the Second Vatican Council had been brought up on a Theology that had been firmly grounded on the “Everlasting Philosophy” of St. Thomas Aquinas, they would never have failed to isolate all that Rome had to hold up to them. Then, after the accurate reading of “the signs of the times”, they would have found in that same philosophy and theology the means of combating the evils that were creeping in long before they got out of hand as they are now. Instead, they handed over the effective running of their dioceses to the worst kinds of feminists and modernists who strongly advised them that their advice was born out of Vatican II ....
In present-day Catholic Australia, we of the Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception, not being able to deal with all that Rome has demanded should be rectified, can deal only with isolated topics. The one chosen for this paper is the question of conscience which the Holy See has brought to the notice of the Australian bishops for their urgent attention in the following words, taken from Number 6 of the Statement:-

  • Challenges to Christian Anthropology.
Behind the above-mentioned elements is a profound paradigmatic change in anthropology that is opposed to classical anthropology. It is characterised, for example, by an extreme individualism, seen especially in a concept of conscience that elevates the individual conscience to the level of an absolute, thus raising the subjective criterion above all objective factors and having no point of reference beyond itself. Another example is a change in the relations between creation, nature, body and spirit, resulting in certain forms of feminism which express an anthropology profoundly different from classical anthropology.

From the chaos in Catholic affairs that lies so eloquently expressed in the drawn-up Statement of Conclusions, one other conclusion is inescapable:
the priests and future bishops of post-Conciliar Australia have not been brought up on a Theology that has for its foundation the Everlasting Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. That this constitutes a deliberate flouting of a serious command issued from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church can be seen from the following words:-
“In view of all this it is not surprising that the Church will have Her future Priests brought up on a Philosophy which derives its methods, its system and its basic principles from the Angelic Doctor.” (Can. 1366, 2 in the old CJC).

In view of all what?
In view of...
Aeterni Patris’, Pope Leo XIII, Aug. 1,1879, Encyclical;
Doctoris Angelici’, Pope St. Pius X, June 29, 1914, Motu Proprio;
Quod de fovenda’, Pope Benedict XV, Mar. 19, 1917, Letter to Jesuits;
Studiorum Ducem’, Pope Pius XI, June 29, 1923, Encyclical;
Directive of the Sacred Congregation of Studies’, Mar. 7, 1916;
and further extensive directives contained in two encyclicals
Pascendi Dominici Gregis’, Pope St. Pius X, Sep. 8, 1907, and
Humani Generis’, Pope Pius XII, Aug. 12, 1950.

“One thing is clearly established by the long experience of the ages: his teaching appears to chime in by a kind of pre-established harmony with Divine Revelation. No surer way to safeguard the First Principles of the Faith.”
[‘Humani Generis’].

“Let the Academies already founded or to be founded by you (the bishops) illustrate and defend this doctrine and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors ... Be careful to guard the minds of youth from those fountains which are said to flow from St. Thomas, but in reality are gathered from strange and polluted streams.”

[‘Aeterni Patris’].
“... gathered from strange and polluted streams”. How relevant this still is on the eve of the year 2000 can be gathered from one of those ‘strange streams’, the Geelong [in Victoria] deanery. In its ‘Geelong Deanery Digest’, Vol. 19, June 1999, we can read the following headline: “Promising Start for New Venture in Ecumenical Theological Education in Geelong”.
This “polluted stream” leads to a ‘Bachelor of Theology’ degree and going by the glowing letter of recommendation from the pen of Mgr. James Murray, PP of St. Mary of the Angels, this course “is a combined venture of the Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran and Uniting Churches”. The letter further states:
I strongly recommend this venture to you [Msgr. is speaking directly to Catholics here], and I hope and pray that a number of Catholics will avail themselves of this great opportunity to study theology”.

What hope have they got ...!

“... reason borne on the wings of Thomas to its human height, can scarcely rise higher while Faith could scarcely expect stronger aids from reason than those it has already obtained through Thomas. His teachings are such that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and they who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
[‘Aeterni Patris.’]

“Always” includes June, 1999...

“If Catholic Doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defence in a philosophy whose principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the Philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or the other, but are to be considered as the foundation upon which the whole science of natural and Divine things is based. If such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the Dogmas of Divine Revelation are proposed by the Magisterium of the Church.” [‘Doctoris Angelici’].
Are these words written for post-Conciliar Australia or not?
Do they accurately describe (with maybe two exceptions) ‘theology’ in the Australian seminaries and the Geelong deanery of today?
Oh sure, the majority of those who leave those seminaries and courses have carved out for themselves a cosy niche in the contemporary pagan world, but from that niche – as the Statement of Conclusions so vividly depicts – they will neither save their own soul nor those of others. Maybe here is the place to use a quote which sums up all the foregoing. It is a testimony by two opponents, Bucer and Theodore Beza, incorporated by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical ‘Aeterni Patris’:-

“If the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily do battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory and abolish the Church.”

This is not an exaggerated description of Catholic life in Australia in the year 1999, the Year of the Eternal Father, Aeterni Patris ... As can be seen from the above quote, it is rampant in Geelong and in numerous other places in Australia. This shows that overwhelming evidence is available from Papal documents, from the ‘Statement of Conclusions’ and from our own daily experience, that the vast majority of Catholic bishops in Australia have notbeen brought up on the philosophy and the theology of St. Thomas.
The opponents ‘have done battle with Catholic teachers; they have gained a major victory and have abolished most of Catholic life in this country’. And if Pope St. Pius X is right, then it will be “useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defence” in other ‘philosophies’. And to make the point of this particular lecture crystal clear: it will be equally useless to expect from non-Thomists sound teaching on the subject of Conscience. Thus, as anything of lasting value can hardly be expected to come from the Hierarchy in Australia in the present state of utter confusion and paralysis, we may as well ourselves do what the Holy See has demanded should be done: the urgent correction of so many erroneous consciences found to be prevalent amongst Catholics in this country.
The subject will be approached first from Thomistic Philosophy and then from the Theology built on that. ....