SAINT MARY OF THE CROSS
Sex education in schools need not occupy much time.
The basics can be taught in about five minutes out of the student’s twelve years in classrooms.
More detailed ramifications should take about another five minutes.
(1) The basics are covered in the first half of the following quotation: “God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them…this is why a man leaves his father and mother and joins himself to his wife, and they become one body.”
(2) The ramifications are covered in the second half of the same quotation.
Other “gender theories” don’t really stand up.
Are there certain people who, for reasons related to their genes and chromosomes etc., don’t fit easily into male/female classification?
If so, their existence makes no difference to the truth of what applies to everybody else.
(Source of quote: the Bible, Book of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2)
Donald Trump was elected largely on the strength of promising to “make America great again”.
Probably no Australian leader could say that and be taken seriously.
Pauline Hanson? But will she ever assemble a team that doesn’t promptly self-destruct?
Perhaps ex-Prime Minister Abbott had what it takes. But will he get another chance?
Eric Abetz, Kevin Andrews, Barnaby Joyce…they’ve shown they can cope with ministerial responsibilities, but….
Cory Bernardi? Noel Pearson? Bernard Gaynor? All long shots.
Anybody in the world of sport setting a heroic example to inspire the nation?
Neither David Warner nor Destanee Aiava would probably want the role.
There should be somebody suitable in the Church.
If there is, we’ll probably never hear of him/her.
Seems it’s up to us nobodies to just live by what we know is right and offer God our services to at least help make our own family and neighbourhood great.
Senator David Leyonhjelm is under criticism for suggesting that child-care workers are over-trained — and perhaps over-funded.
Here’s a different idea.
Children might be best off with institutional child-care defunded to the point of not existing.
Who would then look after the children? Perhaps their mothers.
If the mother and father were married, could the father’s work support them all — mum staying at home doing full-time mothering?
Father’s taxes — which in the past were funding non-parental child-care — could contribute to an allowance given direct to home-mothering couples.
The mother could probably breast-feed her children.
Children enjoy that — they thrive on parental “warmth”.
Victorian state MPs may soon participate in a “conscience vote” about legalising euthanasia by doctor-assisted suicide.
What do these people think “conscience” means?
For most it seems to mean “what I feel comfortable with”.
Being comfortable is a feeling — not the same as using one’s intelligence or willing good to another person.
If you’re uncomfortable witnessing somebody in a weakened or undignified state or having to bear incompletely-controlled pain, there’s a simple, only-too-obvious solution — kill that person or help him/her suicide.
Less convenient is the alternative — the attention to detail of good nursing and medication-dosage plus one-to-one spiritual support in facing the lonely truth of the situation.
Traditionally “conscience” means putting into practice what is one’s best understanding of Moral Truth — seeking the best possible fulfilment of the person of the sufferer, given the present situation.
Why? Because we love that person.
By contrast, killing is a cop-out.
In early 2016, a Victorian man with advanced tongue cancer was offered Nembutal (illegal lethal tablets) by euthanasia-promoting doctor, Dr Rodney Syme.
The patient’s GP complained and the Medical Board of Victoria put a ban on Dr Syme from practising end-of-life patient care – describing him as a “serious risk”.
Dr Syme appealed to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) which has reversed the ban.
Assisting a patient to commit suicide is against the law in Victoria and carries a 5-year prison sentence.
That is an excellent law, designed to protect vulnerable people from falling into the hands of the euthanasia types — while, hopefully, accessing care from proper palliative care doctors.
The Victorian government plans to reverse that law — a bad move which would endanger the frail, the despairing, the weak and the elderly.
The Victorian government — determined to introduce legalised euthanasia — assure us there will be strict “safeguards”.
Do they really believe those safeguards will be adhered to long-term?
Anyway, safeguards aren’t the point.
The problem with mercy-killing is that it is killing.
It isn’t “letting the patient die”. Or “letting the patient refuse treatment”. Those things are legal already.
Any act or omission which intentionally causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder.
On the other hand, discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate.
Using painkillers to alleviate sufferings, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be acceptable if death is not the intention, but is only foreseen and tolerated.