Cardinal George Pell, head of the Australian Church, came under fire the other day for calling the Greens Party “anti-Christian”.

“It’s not my role,” he said, “to tell people how to vote, but I would make a couple of points.”

His points included advice to examine the Greens policies on their website and judge for ourselves “how thoroughly anti-Christian they are”.

He mentioned in particular that:

 * the Greens are opposed to religious schools.

 * they led attacks on Canberra’s Calvary Hospital because it wouldn’t provide abortions.

 * they belittle the traditional family as being just one alternative lifestyle among many.

 * they favour “marriage” regardless of sexuality or gender identity.

“For those who value our present way of life” he concluded, “the Greens are sweet camouflaged poison.”

* * * 

Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, yelped, saying, “Greens’ policies for a more compassionate society, a more sharing society, a more dignified society, are the most in line with Christian beliefs.”

One Greens Senate candidate, Lin Hatfield Dodds, once director of a Uniting Church agency, said her party’s policies are “very much aligned with Christian values.”

“I’ve seen the Greens stand up for the environment,” she added, “I’ve seen the Greens stand for a voice for everybody — and they are all core things to the Christian faith.”

They are not. She ought to check the Bible. Although respecting the environment and letting people vote now and then are in line with Christ’s teaching — they are NOT its core.

Obeying the Ten Commandments is closer to the core.

* * *

It might have been more impressive if the Greens had said straight out, “Yes we hate Christians — hypocrites and no-goods as they all are etc.”

We all know that’s what the Greens think.

They themselves become hypocrites by making pretty noises in the hope of scratching up a percentage of the so-called “religious vote”.

* * *

Meanwhile Cardinal Pell was doing his job.

He leads the Church. He has come out and said what the Church stands for in the context of the election.

He deserves no criticism — except in so far as he probably doesn’t do it often enough.