Susan Ryan, John Fahey and the Catholic story

I wonder if the final judgement will be based on what we did or on what we didn't do.

What a wonderful article celebrating and commemorating the lives to two eminent Australians who dedicated their lives to public service. The careers of both John Fahey and Susan Ryan attest to the contribution made by Irish-Catholic Australians to the political and social development of Australian life. Both were polar opposites politically and each were political warriors for their sides. Their lives both public and private are symbolic of the contribution of Australian Catholics of what ever ethnicity to the continued growth of Australia as a modern progressive nation.

Better than a good article, this is a gallant one trying desperately to straddle and increasingly vast space between two sadly polarised opposites. I dare to saay that an even more critical comparison would have come d

A creative and timely article that is a great conversation starter for those still involved somewhere in the 'official' church. John Warhurst through comparisons of two significant public figures provides meaning for many of us where Catholic worshippers and non now straddle. Moreover John W rises above the growing Catholic divide and pinpoints the greater good of people and their social justice 'works'. Vale John Fahey and Susan Ryan.

John, A wonderful deeply moving story illustrating just how far those of us of Irish ancestry have come in Australian public life since the end of an era which I can recall, of bitter sectarianism in our history

Thank you so much John for this wonderful column. In a time when public debate is so polarised, your reflections on the lives of two Catholics, politically different, but each living in response to a faith and commitment to serve others, is most welcome. Surely this is what Pope Francis is asking for in Fratelli Tutti - a willingness to work together in the service of others, especially those made vulnerable in life. What Fahey and Ryan shared, as a consequence of Catholic faith, was an understanding of that no person exists in isolation, but our shared humanity, our communion, inextricably bind us together. We are a better community as a consequence of their lives of service.

John Frawley: “I wonder if the final judgement will be based on what we did or on what we didn't do.” One is the other, as Peter, before the cock crew, demonstrated. There are four sins which cry out to heaven. They all have to be ”did” and “didn’t” upon.

Roy Chen Yee. I am sure you would agree, Roy, that words are wonderful things and indeed as powerful if not more powerful than the sword. The doing and the not doing are interchangeable sides of the same sword it seems to me! It is possible to do something wrong by not doing something good and to do something good by not doing something wrong ! I sometimes think the former is the worse option and the one that might first be judged.

You are drawing a very long bow to claim that it was catholicism which underpinned them being decent people and good politicians. No doubt there were many influences, as well as people, and personal experiences which informed their characters and abilities.

Two important figures of our time. One wonders if it is significant that it was Susan Ryan, a woman, who left the church, which has little place for strong female figures, apart from 'the sisters', while John Fahey felt able to remain a prominent male figure within the church? For centuries women have been the back bone of the of the church but in this era many women question the male dominated, clerical nature of Catholicism.

Excuse prior mangled post. Curious essay! John Warhurst is better when he takes on the hierarchy. Meantime, one has to wonder why ES didn't run with Michael Kelly SJ's magnificent accolade to Susan Ryan in 'Pearls & Irritations'. Introducing John Fahey (RIP) to the conversation runs the risk of comparing and contrasting his achievements with Ryan's and, inevitably, taking sides in a discourse that emphasises our Catholic inclusiveness. While Fahey was an estimable Catholic leader from the conservative side of politics, there are surely others who have done and - dare I say it - have yet to do much more.

Judith Lee: ” the male dominated….” It may have something to do with: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106866-five-wild-lionesses-grow-a-mane-and-start-acting-like-males/, transgenderism as a permissiveness of principle, whether women should fly planes which shoot missiles or drop bombs (or even design those things), whether the visitors at Mamre were male because Abram was male or whether it was Abram that had to be male to receive them, why Adam was created first in full foreknowledge of the Fall, why a spirit must be consubstantial with a son, whether testosterone, a chemical, also incarnates a principle, whether matter is governed by principle because the spiritual world is principle. Ethic is more than intellect. Ethic determines with the assistance of the empirical that the sexual distribution of lung surgeons is a matter of intellect, not ethic. The distribution of those who may manipulate the invisible to baptise, confirm, consecrate and absolve is ethic because the empirical cannot assess the spiritual. Arguably, ethic, not intellect, determines the sexual distribution of who might enable or deploy the fatal force of a fallen world. If there is a “male” principle, ethic determines its scope in the spiritual world. For the material world, its scope is deduced from ethic, not induced from intellect.

I attended the same Bridigine school in Maroubra as Susan Ryan - four years later. I also studied for four years at the ACU. Susan and John both made wonderful contributions to Australian life. But despite having positive early formative influence, Susan left the Church and indeed represents the norm for so many. Would it were not so!

PeterD: “….left the Church and indeed represents the norm for so many.” Is the norm exile or abandonment? When they leave the institution, do they stay in private contact with the same God as conceived of by the institution? Or is it usually the case that when they abscond the institution, they also leave God marooned like some elderly in a nursing home? Some people declaim that they will leave the country if X (say, Trump or Abbott or Gillard or whoever) is elected. They never do because they can’t. There’s a certain hypocrisy in leaving just because you can if, in another circumstance of supposed conviction, you won’t because you can’t. And, with the multiplicity of other venues for staying in touch with the same God, albeit with lesser lights of truth, there’s really no excuse for marooning him in a nursing home. Leave in exile if you must, but not to abandon. The culpabilities are possibly different because the starting intents are different, even if the exile turns out to be permanent but the abandonment not.

It is to be noted that Roy Chen Yee's mean-spirited remarks about Senator Susan Ryan have not been emulated by the Catholic Church, which, despite her personal differences with the Church, has magnanimously arranged a burial service for her at St Mary's Cathedral. It highlights PeterD's point that, while many have regrettably found no alternative but to leave the Church, the Church recognises that all are God's creatures who are loved by God, regardless of their disagreements with the Church.

Michael Furtado: “It is to be noted that Roy Chen Yee's mean-spirited remarks about Senator Susan Ryan have not been emulated by the Catholic Church, which, despite her personal differences with the Church, has magnanimously arranged a burial service for her at St Mary's Cathedral.“ The privilege to bind and loose the mortgage on a soul works best if the soul is repentant. Because nobody can see what a soul looks like to God, the presence or absence of grand funeral arrangements gives no advice on the matter. They are only evidence of human goodwill towards a recently departed. The fact that we can be relieved that Bill Hayden has redeemed his privilege to return to the Church implicitly contains a concern that Susan Ryan either chose not, or was unable, to redeem that privilege. The two are sides of the coin. Because the position of the Church is that we are confident of God’s mercy to all within and outside the institutional confines of the Church but that there is no assurance of salvation for any of them, a funeral Mass can only request salvation.

Funny how J.W. avoids this, but why should we give a toss about secular awards or favourable write-ups? Does he believe in an afterlife? My focus is on where I'll spend eternity. I'll pray for both of these souls. I'm really concerned for poor Susan Ryan, given her fierce pro-abort commitment and overall apostasy. Sheesh. But the likeable John Fahey's career is concerning as well. He was always rubbery ... not exactly your Donald Trump. More the type that God said He would chuck up because he was neither hot nor cold (Rev 3:16). I really hope they both recanted their non-Catholic views, and their sins, and turned to the Lord at the last. As I hope I will. Susan Ryan and John Fahey, RIP. And J.W., get your act together. Life here is short. And then there's eternity.

HH. JW clearly believes that the reforms in the secular world championed by Susan Ryan and her band of "comrades" should be applied to the Catholic Church. The big worry is that Francis displays a penchant for the thinking typical of the comrades starting with the watering down of sacramental marriage disguised under care and concern for all created by God. Unfortunately this position does not recognise all creatures created by the very same God. Like you, I sincerely hope Susan made it and is finally, happily enlightened. God is merciful and we all need that!

JF: Agreed. We're all sinners, and we all need to call on God to pull us out of our self-inflicted mess. He will do it, if we're sincere in our plea, and raise us to our original dignity as He has done with the amazing saints of history, such as Padre Pio. Oremus pro invicem. Let us pray for each other. God bless.

It is hopefully more unfortunate than mischievous that John Frawley has read the latest social encyclical of Pope Francis as a comment, and a mistaken one at that, on the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons who commit themselves to marriage, for it is no such thing. Were John to read the encyclical he would note, first and foremost, that it is not about sexual ethics, nor the natural law nor indeed about the medical and reproductive matters that lie within his frame of professional reference, but about the maltreatment of homosexual persons at this point of time in about ninety per cent of the globe, where they are prevented from civil marriage, an institution that is Caesar's and which enables the increasing majority of heterosexual couples who avail of civil marriage to benefit from the laws of privacy, access, inheritance and other accoutrements of human rights to which conversation the Catholic Church is a major participant and contributor. To reduce the social teaching of the Church(CST), which is the particular prerogative of the Papacy, to a discussion on the unorthodoxy of the Pope's remarks is to gravely and unjustly misrepresent him as well as to demonstrate an ignorance of CST.

Michael Furtado: “civil marriage, an institution that is Caesar's and which enables the increasing majority of heterosexual couples who avail of civil marriage to benefit from the laws of privacy, access, inheritance and other accoutrements of human rights” All of which a civil union can do if it does not include the privilege of surrogacy, and with some limitations concerning adoption. Marriage is for the begetting of children in a philosophically consistent and safe atmosphere, vital elements of which are provenance and identity. Of course, the main fault for the blunting of sensitivity by society to those elements lies with heterosexuals and their pagan embrace of easy divorce.

I couldn't agree more about divorce, dear Roy, were it not for the fact that the Church Itself recognises that locking two parties - whether straight or Queer - into a permanent civil marriage is both morally as well as canonically unjust by insisting that a civil divorce is availed of before the pastoral salve of an annulment can be applied.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “….were it not for the fact that the Church Itself recognises that locking two parties - whether straight or Queer - into a permanent civil marriage is both morally as well as canonically unjust by insisting that a civil divorce is availed of before the pastoral salve of an annulment can be applied.” Annulment isn’t a ‘pastoral’ ‘salve’. Pope John Paul II said that there were too many annulments. ‘Pastoral’ ‘salve’ is an abuse of the purpose of the annulment process which is forensically to determine if the parties can morally be held to the covenant because they understood the sanctity of the promise at the time of marriage and entered into it with free will. The civil divorce is a visible indictment of the parties who do not receive an annulment (and from which they should learn something). The requirement to be civilly divorced before seeking the annulment protects the Church from flakes.

More than that, it helps clarify that for you, Roy, religion is a matter of impersonal forensic precision and scientific application, as one might imagine in the case of undertaking a surgical operation or carrying out a detective inspection; whereas for most persons it is more complex than that, entailing, in addition to the factors you properly insist upon, a consideration of human and pastoral issues that no detective inspector or forensic surgeon is well-enough equipped, 'sponte in unum scriptor', to pronounce upon. I recognised this paradox spontaneously in encountering the priest who pronounced on my annulment at the same gay venue that I sought solace within at a very dark time in my life.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “whereas for most persons it is more complex than that, entailing, in addition to the factors you properly insist upon, a consideration of human and pastoral issues that no detective inspector or forensic surgeon is well-enough equipped, 'sponte in unum scriptor', to pronounce upon.” The Magisterium exists so, to translate the Latin, one does not have to decide on one’s own. Complexity derives from the chaos that evil originates, and which God has to allow because of his commitment to free will. Theodicy is our search for the simplicity which has always connected alpha to omega, glimpses of which are evidenced in decisions to fast and abstain from the faux complexities of the world, the flesh, and the devil.

And THAT's the point, Roy! Unlike you, I don't judge him because of the difficulties that executing the canonical role must wreak on his human side. It must follow then that a man, no matter how gifted with the grace that flows from faith and the commitment of ordination, as well as the objectivity expected of one with a degree in canon law, may not, because of the free-will that is part of our humanity, wander into the dens of despair where those whose marriages have failed may have sought the solace of the limited affection on offer to them. After all, Jesus did not condemn the prostitute while those around him shrank from her in revulsion! Even Pope Francis has inferred this in his refusal to engage in discourses of hell and damnation.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “After all, Jesus did not condemn the prostitute while those around him shrank from her in revulsion!” He told her to go and sin no more (and it’s cherry picking not to have mentioned that). He didn’t say that because of her economic and social circumstances, future behaviour would be excused because of the difficulties that executing her economic needs must wreak on her human side. The text doesn’t say what he did about her physical circumstances. Did she join the group? Did she just go home? As far as we know, he left her there, with economic complexities that were not at all faux compared to the psychological navel-gazing of the contemporary well-fed. So, that story impresses upon us the fact that the injunction to sin no more is very strong. As for “refusal to engage in discourses of hell and damnation”, why is it not only permissible but mandatory for the medical authorities to harp on the cause-and-effect of not socially distancing and pursuing other sanitary measures? If it is legitimate to point out the earthly grave effects of certain causative behaviours, is it not logically equal to do the same about extra-earthly grave effects?

Thanks Roy. Jesus told her not to sin again: we have scope to speculate here because the Gospels don't elaborate on what the sinful behaviour she had engaged in was. Dishonouring herself? Not standing up to her oppressors, nor fighting for justice, as He did? If the issue revolves around economics - fighting for her rights and for the wherewithal to sustain herself in a society within which we know that men subjugated women - without having to sell her body? Of course we partly know this through reference to the OT: Jesus radically critiqued and subverted the purity code of clean and unclean (e.g. as exemplified in Leviticus). He did this by healing on the sabbath, befriending tax collectors and sinners, befriending and blessing women, allowing women to touch him, etc. Your last question is an interesting one. Since medical authorities are entitled to harp on about the cause-and-effect of not socially distancing and pursuing other sanitary measures to keep safe, where does that place prostitutes? And the medical answer is in the regulation basket, where they may safely ply their trade. If you insist on the comparison, I reject it, but prostitution is no more than merely demoralising!

Michael Leonard Furtado: ““because the Gospels don't elaborate on what the sinful behaviour she had engaged in was.” If you’re referring to the woman with the nard (Luke 7:37), it doesn’t matter because her sins, whatever they were by virtue of being a social outcast, were worse than that of the host: “Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.”” Despite the host not having provided the usual courtesies to his guest, and being under the duty to be extremely grateful to God for having been cured of leprosy, the social outlier’s duties to repent were still greater than those of the suave in-group Pharisee, Simon the Leper. Sin is unsentimental and migrates to where the borders are most permeable. John D. Mueller, the author of Redeeming Economics and a proponent of the return of economics to the insights of Aquinas who built upon Aristotle and Augustine, says that economics is and will always be a colony of moral philosophy because it is a theory of providence. Sin flourishes as easily in poverty as in wealth. So, prostitution is not merely demoralising.

You employ a typically clever but perverse logic: one akin to arguing the case against a poor person gaining entry to Heaven, as against the chances of a rich one.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “perverse logic: one akin to arguing the case against a poor person gaining entry to Heaven, as against the chances of a rich one.” We can only go by what the magisterial text gives us. That the woman, who may or may not have been poor, sinned more than the Pharisee comes from “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” There was not much sin, relatively speaking, in the Pharisee to forgive. The significant question is whether, of the two quantities and qualities of sin, what was the relative proportion in each of the sin of not being poor in spirit.

Roy; while I admire your mathematical agility, it would be as clear to me as to many others that you have misread the text. Christ's injunction here is surely that to love more, despite the social opprobrium attached to that inclination, is morally superior than to have measured out one's love by the coffee-spoonful.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “Christ's injunction here is surely that to love more, despite the social opprobrium attached to that inclination, is morally superior than to have measured out one's love by the coffee-spoonful.” But, love who more? It is Christ who explicitly differentiates between the coffee spoonsful of the respective sin-loads in terms of love towards himself, otherwise why the two levels of debt in the story he tells Simon? Those who are under a heavier load are under a greater duty to love the forgiver, just as all ten lepers should have returned to thank Jesus. The woman was cognizant of her debt and repaid it with her depth of contrition. There’s nothing in the story about free-floating love towards all and sundry. The love is for a forgiveness. In some sense, a Simon who believes in the existence of sin in general but is not aware of any particular sin attaching to himself is in the same boat as those who believe in sin in general but don't have a true conviction of sin from the Spirit. The scripture is about who is truly convicted of their sin. Those who are truly convicted love God more than those who have a lesser or no conviction.

Is a quibble worth more than a split hair, dear Roy? Since I agree with your conclusion, and admire the pith you always pack into your postscript, it seems we arrive at the same point from different bearings on the same compass. Magellan traveled from West to East and da Gama and Dias the other way around. However they both 'discovered' Asia. And so, the woman who loved God more was surely more esteemed by Jesus than the puritan who loved less, which to me is the entire point of the story.

Michael Leonard Furtado: “which to me is the entire point of the story.” There are several points. Sins are sins, as with the woman caught in adultery, irrespective of bogus excuses about science and complexity of personal circumstances. The story is also as much to do with the crowd wondering about this man who was claiming to do something only God could do: personally, and in the first person, forgive sins, something that John the Baptist did not do. Religion is forensic because judging and condemning are not the same thing. Jesus did not have to condemn but he certainly had to judge. You can judge without condemning if justice and mercy permit but you cannot validly not-condemn without first having judged, which makes your comment about not judging the priest at the gay venue wrong. If you didn’t judge, you would be derelict in your responsibility to your human faculty to appraise the morality of something you perceive. Which also makes the mantra about not being “judgemental” ignorant. The mantra is really about not condemning, but who is? People sin because they are caught in binds. That is not an excuse to sin, merely not to be punished.

When an offence is committed, its incumbent upon one to mention the offense and seek repentance. If they repent, they are forgiven. We are responsible to release them from their guilt. We, in turn, are responsible to release the matter into God’s hands (Matt. 5:23-24). What if that person re-offends? Christ responds with 'Seek repentance again, and if they repent again, we should forgive them again' (Matt. 18:21-22). How often should we do that? Christ says we should forgive them indefinitely. What if they really don't repent? That's not our responsibility but God's (Romans 12:19; Rom. 12:20-21). If we refuse to forgive a person who repents, or insist on inflicting justice in our own way, then bitterness takes root in our heart and will slowly but surely destroy both us and the people around us (Heb. 12:14-15). To avoid this, we are exhorted to give our doubts, our hurts and our frustrations to God (Psa. 55:22). If there is anything left to avenge or make right, then God will surely handle it. Just love the miscreant instead and pray for God to bless them. That's what I mean by judgmentalism, Le Roy. Show da compassion, Big Fella. Its God's Way!

“When an offence is committed…It’s God's Way!” The ordinary magisterium, as re-capitulated by Michael Leonard Furtado. Sounds good. And, thank you for your post concerning Ann Rampa and St Mary’s in Exile. It’s a sad moving feast as to who is your compatriot one day and ex-compatriot the next. Hopefully, you’ll both be on the same side when the re-elected state government’s proposed euthanasia law makes its parliamentary appearance.

Immense thanks for citing the Anne Rampa post, Le Roy, but profound commiserations for misreading it. Your extenuating circumstance is that you unfortunately see everything in terms of taking sides against all things modernistic. That, alas, is the hallmark of the fundamentalist and the heresy-hunter, and not at all an authentic depiction of the Church's magisterial position. What a miserable pity, then, that you continue to contribute to the divisiveness that plagues this conversation rather than recognise my overall argument that not all virtue, nor for that matter diabolical vice, attaches to one side or other of any moral debate!

Michael Leonard Furtado: “not at all an authentic depiction of the Church's magisterial position.…rather than recognise my overall argument that not all virtue, nor for that matter diabolical vice, attaches to one side or other of any moral debate!” The authentic magisterial position is that not all virtue or vice may attach to one side or the other of a moral debate on a prudential matter. Where the magisterium defines something as a matter of intrinsic good or evil, all the virtue is on the side of the magisterium and all the vice on the side of those kindly and sincere intentions paving the easy road to hell.