page28

A lot of people are asking what Gillard believes in. We certainly know she doesn't believe in God and has gone on the record as saying so. Privately a lot of believers despise nonbelievers. And would put atheism in the same philosophical/theological basket as Satanism. In fact a lot of people are of the view that atheism is just another form of Satanism.

It is good for Gillard that (at least) superficial believers are not publically inclined to agitate for the use of more proactive techniques to cleanse the despoiled souls of atheists, heretics, blasphemers and doubters. Like they used to do in years past. It seems in these modern times the laying on of hands is the preferred method, rather than the once favoured method of unspeakable torture and death. It is interesting to note that burning at the stake was much favoured by Catholics. Henry VIII's daughter, Mary Tudor or Bloody Mary as she was grimly called - had 274 burnings during her five year reign, mainly Protestants, when she was attempting the reinstatement of Catholicism in England. That's not to say you don't sometimes get the feeling the more extreme religious right somehow pine for the good old days. Eternal damnation is not entirely satisfying, it seems. Sin now - pay later! It just doesn't work in the real world. Take for example a murderer who has just been convicted of murdering his wife's side of the family and a couple of innocent bystanders. What if his lawyer in sentencing submissions implores the judge to give the bastard a non custodial sentence and a couple of hours community service… Where's the justice in that? Of course there is more secular option that could precede Gillard's eternal damnation, given that the more merciful option of her soul being purified with a stint in Purgatory and it's cleansing fires would be an unnecessary conciliation. Perhaps she might suffer the indignity she inflicted on her predecessor. That would indeed be divine justice to many believers and nonbelievers alike, because divine justice transcends theological and secular concepts.

Our present prime minister is a secularist and like-minded people believe her deliberations differ from Tony Abbott's because his point of view includes theological as well as secular concepts. Deep down Abbott is of the opinion that as a Catholic he's a member of the true faith    the original universal church and that Protestants and others who reject papal authority are nothing more than Johnny-come-latelies. Abbott always says when it's is fitting to do so, 'Our prayers are with ... (insert appropriate name followed by reason the prayers are being accorded). Just about every politician has cause these days to start an oration with a prayer, after the latest tragic incident. But most politicians believe in God . Obviously Gillard can't say 'our prayers are with you' because atheists don't pray, unless the perquisite of a miraculous conversion is involved - such as occurred all those years ago when Saul was struck down on the road to Damascus. So Gillard's preferred option is 'Our hearts go out to ... (insert appropriate name followed by reason the thoughts are being accorded). If at some time in the future she says our prayers are with you then it can only mean she's found God. Some readers might find such a suggestion ridiculous, but this is not so. Remember Gillard's address to Congress on 10 March 2011. The superlatives were flowing so thick and fast we thought she might run out of them and resort to getting on all fours and engaging in a bit of unrestrained bootlicking. It doesn't seem so long ago when she was a comrade member of the group Socialist Forum. Socialist Forum was a somewhat extreme think-tank . She even put her moniker on a pamphlet advocating that the ANZUS alliance be terminated once and for all. See what we mean. If Ms Gillard is vulnerable to secular road to Damascus type conversions she is equally susceptible to religious type road to Damascus conversions. We shall have to wait and see.

Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, is an our prayers are with you man. Not that he overplays the religious card. That's all part of his humility, and devoutness goes hand-in-hand with humility. He is also a confidante and mate of George Pell, the conservative and some might say reactionary Catholic Archbishop of Sydney. Archbishop Pell underwent a meteoric rise in his career path under his patron Pope John Paul ll who appreciated Pell's no-nonsense approach to Catholicism and his disdain for the newfangled ideas circulating amongst the more progressive elements of the Catholic faithful.

And while we're on the subject, how come Australia's tally in the sainthood stakes is a miserly one Mary MacKillop, canonized in Rome on 17 October 2010 by John-Paul's successor Pope Benedict XVI. John-Paul canonized 296 new saints and beatified 923 during his papacy, some of them for reasons that are apparently dodgy. (Borderline was baptized into Catholicism and to hedge our bets we are reminded that St Alphonsus believed you could be accused of heresy if you accused Rome of making an error canonizing a saint. Heresy is followed by excommunication and incorporation in the Vatican's list of the unspeakable damned. So just to be sure…) Could it be that Mary MacKillop's unorthodox methods aroused suspicions of socialist inclinations? Probably, as we all know John-Paul never had much time for those with socialist leanings not coming from Poland.   Let's face it, if she was alive today Mary MacKillop could be accused of liberation theology/practice, more worthy of excommunication than canonization.

And another point, while we're in the mood for speculation… Do you think if Christ was Leader of the Opposition and Abbott one of his shadow minister he would ask Abbott to demand that the boats be turned back? Would the merciful Father in Heaven make such a request? No way! What if Abbott insisted that the boats be turned around? Would he be accused of lacking Christian charity and compassion, publically rebuked, sacked and sent into the wilderness like Cain on an earlier occasion? Of course he would. You can only wonder if Abbott sought counsel with George Pell on the matter. Maybe Cardinal Pell is fully aware that in the cut and thrust of politics when you want a member of the same faith in The Lodge you have to be a bit pragmatic. 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's,' Luke 20:25, or perhaps in this instance when you get in bed with the devil you have to be prepared to take your trousers off might be more to the point.

A footnote. You can get it wrong when it comes to determining a person's apparent saintliness. And the Vatican might take notice on both accounts. When Jeanne Pratt, wife of the late prominent Australian businessman Richard Pratt (fined $36 million for price fixing), called former Melbourne society priest Vincent Kiss 'a living saint,' it was an observation shared by the A list of Melbourne society at the time. How was she to know the former priest at the Sacred Heart Church in Mate Street, North Albury, wasn't a living saint at all. As this Age newspaper report in 2002 said:

Vincent Kieran Kiss was the ideal escort to all the right charity functions - safe and unattached. Or so it seemed, until his other life unraveled.
The fall from grace of Father Vincent Kieran Kiss is complete. The former society priest, who was once to be seen at the most exclusive Melbourne functions, yesterday pleaded guilty in a Sydney court to 13 child sex charges.
Kiss, 70, will be sentenced in the Sydney District Court on September 6 on 10 charges of indecent assault and three of "the abominable act of buggery" on four youths aged 13 to 17. Judge Penny Hock was told the offences had taken place between 1966 and 1973 at locations including Albury, Yass and Sydney.
The four complainants' names have been suppressed.
If Kiss goes to prison, as Judge Hock indicated was likely, his surroundings won't be unfamiliar. He was released from Ararat jail in July, 1999, after serving seven years for stealing $1.8 million from a charitable trust he was employed to administer.