I like George Pell on the whole. There are certainly times when I hear what he’s saying and think that he’s doing a really good thing. But stuff like this just makes me want to slap him until he snaps out of it. I don’t agree with using embryonic stem cells either, but this sort of tripe is the reason so many people dislike Christians:
CARDINAL George Pell has faced a tirade of criticism from NSW state Catholic MPs, including the Premier, Morris Iemma, and his deputy, John Watkins, for threatening them “with consequences” if they voted for legislation to expand stem-cell research. (The Age – “Pell’s knell for stem-cell Catholics”)
Just don’t do it George. Threats aren’t winning anything for us
It sure is a tough situation. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes having to make these kinds of decisions. Where do we draw the line? Pell has certainly drawn one.
If stem cell research (with the associated cost to human life) is a “sin” then how can Pell and the church allow advocates to participate in communion? That would be hypocritical on both sides.
Come now Wayne, that’s hardly a standard that can be applied across the board. Do we really believe that threatening excommunication to anyone who disagrees on an ethical issue is really a valid and appropriate way of acting? This is hardly a nice clear black and white issue, surely we can actually allow an element of acceptance of disagreement in who we sharecommunion with.
It IS an across the board standard IF you hold to the view that stem cell research is a sinful attack on the sanctity of human life. Flagrant and unrepentant sin is a black and white issue and does require excommunication without appology.
If Pell believes that harvesting stem cells is akin to abortion, and if Catholic members are advocating this, Pell has every responsibility to apply some Church discipline…..The Catholic church does not see this as, “an ethical issue” worthy of discussion.
In fact I think the fact he is standing up for something is very attractive to non Christians. It seems to me that non church people support the church a lot more when they are not wishy washy.
If communion is only for people who don’t sin, then surely the lines outside the confessional before mass should be a lot longer than I suspect they are!
Ron, we all sin, and needs Gods grace…….everyday…..
But there does come a time when a church needs to discipline its members for blatant behaviour which goes against the teaching and leadership of the Church.
Whether you agree with Pell or not, it not the point to me. The point is, he is the leader of the Catholic Church, and that is their teaching.
If you dont like it, dont be a part of that church! (Btw I am not part of that church)
I might just have a blatant disregard for status… but where is it appropriate disciplinary action and where is it simply manipulative? Regardless of the issue and whether stem cell research is wrong. It’s the principle of the thing that gets me.
Hi Bec,
You have some awesome pics on your blog. It’s a dream of mine to walk the Overland Track to Cradle Mountain one day, thanks for the inspiration!
Pell’s stance could be seen as manipulative, but I really think it’s an attempt to influence Catholic MP’s to respond to this debate on a higher level. For every action there is a consequence and Pell has spelled out clearly and simply the consequences for Catholic MP’s should they support stem cell research.
Pell has answered the question, “When is a person NOT permitted to participate fully in the fellowship of the church?” It’s a question every thinking Christian needs to tackle and resolve.
I see where you’re going Bec and I tend to agree with you. The reality is that it would become extremely difficult for any lobby group (eg. the Catholic church) to influence public policy in our system, without banding politicians together and getting them to vote along the same lines.
The thing that I wonder about is why Goerge Pell used the media to voice his stance. Was it to raise the issue publicly? Was it to manipulate? Was to to make the churches stance clear? Was it to remind the MPs that they are accountable to God for their decisions? For whatever reason it certainly has people talking about it!
Thats a good point Dave, maybe Pell could have voiced his concerns directly and privately to those whose behaviour he was concerned about.