Search for episode iii of Mass of Ages

@@Chile2011 yes I saw it already ! I love the TLM

I guess there’s no point in mourning miscarriages then, assuming your logic.

That's when the woman carrying it actually wants the feotus. They actually want to have a baby, as opposed to women who abort.@@Tsrashi

Scienctific evidence shows you to be incorrect. The child is alive from conception. Abortion is murder and anyone who promotes it as good will answer to God on judgment day. That’s the hard cold truth. Defend the unborn, help young mothers understand that there are other avenues. Beautifully sung!

A heartbeat doesn't make a human human. What makes someone human is that they are part of the species of Humanity. And what makes them valuable as humans is that they're alive. We know that these are the case for the unborn from conception, by their Unique Human DNA and their ability to metabolise nutrients. To gatekeep life to be only valuable beyond these traits levels room for prejudice against certain forms of human life.

I really like your comment. You do something that is rare - you put the focus on reflecting yourSELF, NOT assuming that you are superior, that other are similar to do, so be tolerant. In short, the "Golden Rule of Empathy" - treat others like you want to be treated. For that you have to know what you want, and have to be able to imagine what other people (with different mindsets) would like. And there you are, when you are able to do THAT, you can get along great. That is also what I (with my german catholic background) took from Jesus' teachings - humility, awareness of your own fallibility, which automatically leads to tolerance, NOT judging others, listening to others, compassion, mercy, forgiving, helping others. But in the meantime I see that these character properties are not dependant on any divine supervision. You can reach them and live by them all on your own. I think that because I see what so many US christians do, how they absolutely reversed that mindset. They were told that once they believe, they have the backing of an infinitely powerful entity. This entity created the whole giant universe ONLY for them, for them to (ab)use it. We know of NOTHING that God would be interested in in this universe. Animals are irrelevant, are killed along with the owners. In Egypt also all firstborn animals were killed - why? And this God is obsessed by his creation, watches us 24/7, reads our every thought. even in our sleep. The reward ; once you believe (and NEVER ask ANY questions), God's perfection rubs off onto you, you OWN the Truth (no need to know what the truth is), you are RIGHT in whatever you think and do. And you are superior to anyone who does not share your faith. And that superiority is not only regarding these obnoxious atheists, or the other abrahamic religions, it also includes all the other thousands of christian denominations. Each christian thinks his way of interpreting his belief is the one correct one, The self-proclaimed mouthpiece of God that leads your church will tell you that now you have the right to look down on all others, hate of non-believers is one of the few emotions you are allowed by your leader. I see a massive compartmentalization of these congregation - the opposite of the inclusion that you describe in your comment. This compartmentalization would be totally against an all-loving God that wants to give all his "children" the same chance. (and he saved at least some with personal apparitions, like Noah or Paul). But it makes total sense when the businessman preacher wants to bind his customers closely to his brand (which is him). Then you need an exclusive product (your promise of salvation) that is unique on the (religious) market. Then it makes sense that the products become more and more extreme, so you do NOT go to the church next door and donate to those. Another aspect - this conditioning that there is one unquestionable leader that has to be followed unconditionally lends itself to being projected onto a worldly person. Ideal for dictators. In Germany >90% of the population were christians - except of a small minority they all went along with Hitler. The morality that christianity taught them was not enough to not be adaptable to Nationalism and antisemitism. Putin, ex-USSR ex-KGB agent is now supported by the russian orthodox church. Trump had his Second Coming down to earth on an escalator, a gloriole of gold-dyed hair hovering over his head. He is strongest in strongly religious regions. Preachers declare him as the new messiah and order their flock to vote for him. So, from what I see, christianity can be abused to bring people to NOT think any longer, become not more than recital automats of slogans they were told is the irrefutable truth. It makes them feel superior, wonderful for supremacy. It promises simple, perfect answer and solutions, that, when you follow them exactly, cannot fail. I recently (re)discovered the Seven Deadly Sins (and the Seven Virtues): when you look at them, they are all normal emotions we ALL have. And they are no problem, as long as you have learned to keep them under control. To list those as "deadly" sins is genius: now ALL people are sinners, deserve hell, and need constantly support by a preacher to be told that God has forgiven your sins (and for this service the preacher deserves a donation). That is the opposite of what you think. You have self-reflection, your faith is a general guide, but no dogma. You see the variability of our universe and of us humans, that there are so many factors that influence an individual, there is no universal answer, and never a perfect answer. We are all different, our genes all differ, our hormones, our upbringing, our families, our communities, our cultures, our thinking changes constantly throughout our lives. Thig variability is wonderful, is a chance - when you accept it and deal with it. Am I totally wrong?

I’d say that the drift to a more liberal way of life, esp sexually, is a world wide wave that has been occurring since the beginning of the 20th century. Divorce, family breakdown, pornography, sexualisation of youth, multiple sexual partners, sex separated from love and commitment ….. Turns out Pell has been saying the same solid theology all along. Winding that path between ultra conservative and ultra progressives, much the same way John Paul II and Benedict did. Pell will remain a beacon we can look back on and both learn and be inspired by. He will do far greater things now in death, with his recorded and transcribed words and his example throughout one of the greatest legal travesties in Australian history

@@eddiej9733 I wonder if you have discussed your views with your own family. I grew up where violence within family, schools, workplace was common and often ignored by authorities. This is much better. far fewer women and child die from family violence. Personally, I feel there always broken families: we just as society choose never to do anything about such. As for multiple sexual partners. Goosh, those who wish to be celebrant can be with out any denigration: too many women and children were forced to have sex. But adult consensual relationships. They are common among Roman catholic adherents. Cardinal Pells castigation of men and women over sex was appalling. We don't burn Sodom; we are Abraham calling out abuse of power.

@@russellmiles2861 Pells castigation of men and women over sex - what specifically Think if it from a child’s perspective. All children want their parents together. I realise there are times when that’s not possible because of genuine abuse, but the vast majority of separations and divorces occur due to more selfish reasons. I wasn’t being fulfilled, my path went a different way, he/she just didn’t get me. All can be justified from the adults point of view, but none from the child’s As for multiple partners. Everyone wants to be with someone who hasn’t been with a lot of people. To know that others have been intimate with the one you love….. most people think it’s just sex. But it’s far far more. You are forever bonded to that person. It precludes a genuinely and exclusively intimate eventual partnership. I am not a prude by any stretch. And have been with multiple partners. And have been with partners who have been with multiple partners. Having ex’s hanging around is an aweful experience. Anyway. I don’t want to diminish your experience at all, and in these situations, leaving, divorcing etc is often the only option. Myself? I separated from my wife, was in a longer term relationship after that, but realised that although loving(ish) etc, my kids still hated it. Blended families are in the whole disasters even when there’s an attempt to make it work. I realised that I had to seperate to show my kids they were my number one. That I had left their mum because of selfish reasons. I’ll never reconcile with their mum, but I realised that the Catholic teaching of no divorce came straight from Jesus. And I intend to follow through with that. Anyway. The Church’s teachings (all directly from Jesus) are an almost impossibly high bar. But that high bar is justified and right. That’s not to say I condemn at all others who find their own way. But I think I’m justified in supporting Pells stance of simply supporting the Church teaching. There is so much misery in the world around a wrong way of regarding sex. One of the worst is sexual obsession. Always thinking of it and wanting it. Viewing material that enflames desires. Even print media, TV, Facebook etc has material that gets the blood flowing. Not being a prude at all, but when you realise that peoples sex buttons are being stimulated (sorry, could resist that one) constantly, it’s overwhelming. There’s another, healthier way. I can say that I’ve never had such meaningful and satisfying sex as I did with my wife. That’s even ending up living with a woman that fulfilled every desire and fantasy. But, the foundation wasn’t right. Haha. Your right. Some of the greatest breaker of church doctrines are Catholics themselves (myself included) BUT the benchmark set by Jesus still remains the perfect model, and we should aspire to that rather than dismiss is as being unrealistic

@@eddiej9733 I imagine we'll disagree. But yes, I imagine my children would rather have not lost their mother so young. But aside from grief I don't believe they were disadvantaged. There were plenty of family, friends, teachers, doctors and others. There is no scientific evidence that children are effected by being raised by other than birth parents. About 1:50-1:20 children are raised by relatives, friends, neighbours. There is no evidence that the sex or sexual orientation of parents is an issue. Cardinal Pell spent a career denigrating women, same sex parents, aunts and others whom raised children . As for folk having preferences about husbands wives based on sexual partners. Again, you are entitled to such views. I have never met anyone with such an attitude. My present wife seems to think it fascinating. Again, there is no evidence of such. This is just an ideology or opinion. But none of this matters: under Cardinal Pell's watch participation in the Roman Catholic church fell to its lowest level recorded. A 2018 Church life Survey found 27% of respondents selected that they believed in a god. Of course due to migration the Roman Catholic church is not as in decline as Anglican Uniting Church Lutheran etc. But doing not as bad in Christian leadership is not much of a result for a life's work.

@@russellmiles2861 goodness, when a spouse passes or needs to be divorced due to violence of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with re- partnering. I sincerely apologise if that’s the way my obviously clumsy post read. And of course human experiences and lives are messy. And tragic. And people other than birth parents make wonderful and loving co-raisers of children I think my point is that beyond the extraordinary circumstances, the divorces that come from selfish circumstances point to a slide in child wellbeing. I researched blended families when i had one and the stats are stunning. 80% of all blended families end in divorce. Studies that interview children of blended families as adults reveal that deep down, the bulk of ‘kids’ lamented that they weren’t in their original family situation, and although the incidences of the evil step mother or father were rare, most interviewed felt they were in a family that suited the parents at the detriment of the kids. But as I said. When circumstances dictate through tragedy etc, kids actual benefit from having two parents. The stats of kids in single parent families aren’t great. Great Depression and anxiety. More chance of crime. Greater suicide rates. Previous partners. I think as a society we’ve just had to get used to it. Since the sexual revolution of the 60s the wider population feel that it’s ok. But the older you get, the more you can see that this isn’t ideal. I don’t think you have to be the jealous type to feel uneasy around your partners previous partners. I would bet my entire years salary on most guys, deep down, would much prefer a partner who didn’t have a huge body count. I’m fact would prefer a virgin. I know that sounds crazy, but if your after a true partner. Someone who you want to join completely with, I guarantee that most men, most decent men would prefer a low body count woman. The Catholic church’s declining attendance is much bigger than Pells responsibility Ironically the resin the Church of England will virtually disappear in less than another decade is they want to appeal to the world, water down the basic tenets taught by Jesus. I actually see a resurgence in an intellectual approach by many to the Catholic Church. Any let me say and Christian who vilifies or promulgates any hatred toward those that might fall into the sun category, really aren’t Christian’s. The Catholic Church is going through a bit of a revolution under this current pope who’s about engaging with all, rather than sitting back and screaming sinner. That’s never been the intent of the church. Currently the Pope is receiving heavy fire for his latest utterance that while homosexual acts remain a sin, they are not a crime. From both sides. I think Pells sternness is reserved only for those who are attempting to rewrite what is normative. The family of a father and mother is normative. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him hook into the exceptions of the normative rule. Anyway, I can see how even my feeble attempts to provide nuance is clunky and seems to fly directly in the face of very personal and real situations for you, your partner and kids. As a younger Catholic i too thought he was a brittle reactionary… but that was because he was opposed to my more progressive thoughts of how the church should be. But with age and much more investigation into the events and text of the bible I began to realise that it’s not a punitive system of belief, that behind the stupidity floral church actions and ceremonies, behind what I felt was a troupe of incipid priests, cover ups of abuse etc was in fact an incredibly rich and rigorous theology and history. Anyway. Sounds like you’ve really done well following some earlier tragedies and the last thing I want to do is have a drag out blue where that comes into play and you are arguing to justify that to some bloke who seems to be rigidly defending a church that for most of his life he railed against and rejected as well. Appreciate you sharing your story.