In recent years, atheism has become quite trendy.

Likewise agnosticism, and also the pseudo-religion of Catholic Church-hating.

Many books, television debates and space-filler magazine articles have proclaimed these notions.

One atheist group modestly calls itself “the brights”.

Some would suggest it be altered to “the not-verys”.

Australia’s Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, seems to think her public atheism will do her electoral prospects no harm. She may be wrong.

* * *

Last week, another celebrity publicly dumped her Catholic Faith.

Anne Rice, one of the world’s most widely-read writers, whose books have sold nearly 100 million copies, said on Facebook:

Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always, but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group . . . .

In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

* * *

She wants to invent her own Christ: keeping those of his teachings which she likes, ditching the rest.

The Bible forbids such a mentality:

Keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One Body and one Spirit; as you are called into one hope when you were called. There is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism and one God who is Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians, chapter 4)

“Unity” . . . . “One Body” . . . . that sounds like belonging to the one fellowship of fellow-believers, imperfect though they may be.

Despite its faults, this is the one Church that is good enough for Our Lord to honour with the spreading of his Gospel, and with the custody of his holy Sacraments.

Yet it isn’t good enough for Anne Rice (and her many clones) who feel qualified to condemn it from their perceived higher moral ground.

They are on the wrong track.

“As your life rolls out in front of you, you’re the one who has to be in the driver’s seat,” said Prime Minister JG, introducing her new “script-free” campaign-image.

So is it the real Julia standing this time?

Can an atheist be real anyway?

Can an atheist stand for anything?

If there was no God, would there be a difference between good policy and bad policy?

Good is only really good if it means being in conformity with what is absolutely good, i.e. with the will of the good God, who is almighty and unchanging.

Otherwise what is “good” today might be “evil” tomorrow, the terms signifying merely what is in fashion or out of fashion in current thinking.

* * *

Meanwhile Archbishop Barry Hickey of Perth has spoken up:

“Many Christians are concerned that someone who does not believe in God may not endorse the Christian traditions of respect for human life, for the sanctity of marriage and the independence of churches, church schools and church social welfare agencies.”

The Archbishop said he would not seek to influence the way Catholics voted . . . but he DID comment, “Some will undoubtedly vote for Mr Abbott because they appreciate his strong Christian faith.”

* * *

Tony Abbott, ex-Catholic trainee priest, distanced himself from Archbishop Hickey’s comments:

“I’m not going to comment on anything that may have been said by any churchmen. I think that we should respect people’s private religious views . . . every contender and candidate in this election should be judged on competence and policies, not personal beliefs or religious convictions.”

That remark begs so many questions. It is so meaningless. So obviously gormless.

But so politically astute.

Mr Abbott knows that all he has to do now is exactly nothing — shrink to a microscopic un-hittable target and the election will fall into his lap — as the ALP bungles, blunders and self-destructs itself out of the race.

Lots of Christians will be looking for independent candidates for whom to vote.

The statistics show that about 8 percent of Australians go to church every week.

About 12 percent go once a fortnight to once a month.

About 20 percent go at Christmas and Easter, but hardly any other time.

Which fits in with the other things we know about human nature.

* * *

Much of what we do we really don’t do — we have machines, gadgets and short-cuts which sort of do them for us.

Most workers don’t really go to work. They sit in a machine that goes to their workplace: then they get out.

Most meals today are not prepared, so much as unwrapped.

Most people’s only hope of catching a fish is to get the fish-and-chip man to chuck the pre-cooked, pre-wrapped, pre-greased, pre-over-salted parcel across the counter for you to “catch”.

They say today’s young people do less communicating using their vocal cords than with their fingers on keyboards — another way of saying they don’t communicate at all.

To worship God together with other people is a logical duty, but you might say, “I can worship God at home . . . .”

To which God replies, “No you can’t. I have told you that you must do it together.”

* * *

The Law of the Catholic Church is that, “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church . . . on Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass.”

Yes, bound.

The Bible warns against non-attendance at Mass — against trusting in second-hand religion, religion by remote control, making up our own rules etc.

The Epistle to the Hebrews (chapter 10) spells it out:

“Brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary . . . let us hold fast to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy.

“Let us consider one another, how to rouse one another to love and good works — not forsaking our assembly together , as some have become accustomed, but encouraging one another, and so much the more as you see the great day approaching.”

Colombia, South America’s only nation with both a Pacific and an Atlantic coastline — home of the best coffee grown in the world – was for centuries a Catholic nation.

In the 1990s that changed. God was dethroned by an anti-Catholic government.

Things went from bad to worse – drug lords taking over, terrorist attacks, kidnappings, murder and mayhem.

* * *

But President Alvaro Uribe, who became president in 2002, came on national television announcing that “as a nation we are going to say the Rosary together”.

He and his family were consecrated on screen by the Pope’s representative, praying to the Virgin Mary to “help us to have a Colombia that is free of terrorism, prosperous and upright, with social justice”.

“We totally consecrate to you our lives, our work, our joys and sufferings, triumphs and failures . . . protect us from all danger to our souls and bodies. Obtain for us from your Divine Son, Jesus Christ, the graces and favours we ask . . . .”

* * *

During Uribe’s presidency, things started improving. The government applied military pressure on the FARC and other outlawed groups.

Kidnappings decreased from 3,700 in 2000 to 172 in 2009.

Homicides from 28,837 to 15,817

Guerrilla numbers from about 17,000 to about 9000.

* * *

Perhaps Australia, a nation enduring yet another totally materialistic election campaign, a society in decay mode, with increasing suicide, family breakdowns, gambling, drugs, and irreligion . . . .

Perhaps Australia needs to consecrate itself to God.

Neither J, Gillard, claiming to have no religion, nor T. Abbott, religious mainly when it seems politically expedient, seem likely at this stage to sponsor a consecration . . . .

* * *

Yet, if they were convinced there were votes in it, wouldn’t they do it tomorrow?

It’s up to us — general public, priests, bishops — to pressurise the politicos until they feel they have no other option.

Pray to God that he will do the necessary miracle and soften their hard-boiled political hearts.

The opposition Coalition has dis-endorsed its election candidate for the NSW seat of Chifley.

“He’s gone. He’s finished,” says party leader, Mr Abbott.

What did he do?

The candidate, David Barker, said that Labor’s endorsement of a Muslim, Ed Husic, for the seat was “moving Australia closer to becoming a Muslim country”.

In another statement DB alluded also to Julia Gillard, querying whether “we want at this stage a Muslim in parliament and an atheist running the country”.

As he booted Mr Barker into political oblivion, Mr Abbott commented, “Attacks on people based on their religion have no place in this election campaign.”

* * *

Perhaps Mr Barker made a mistake standing for a party machine.

He might have been more free to express his opinions by standing as an Independent.

Party machines aren’t into questions of right and wrong. They are strait-jacketed by an obsession to go better in the polls.

As an Independent, Mr Barker might not get elected, but could perhaps influence the result by his preferences.

At least he could speak as his conscience dictates, without being ideologically mauled.

* * *

Mother Mary MacKillop’s attitude to politics was that one should support candidates prepared to stand up for Catholic principles. She told her Sisters, “Vote for those considered friendly to the Church and Religion. Every so-called Catholic is not the best man.”

True enough. When political parties trot out “all people should be free to worship as they choose”, they are hoodwinking us.

Real religion involves not only one’s worship, but one’s daily life.

Modern politics  – dominated by parties and hacks — tries to restrict religious freedom to what goes on between church walls on Sundays.

Practising one’s faith in ways that challenge the thought-fashions of the day . . . that we are NOT free to do as we choose.

It  will be punished ruthlessly.

Some words of Vladimir Soloviev:

“Jesus did not send his apostles into the solitude of the desert, but into the world – to conquer it and subject it to the Kingdom which is not of this world. He enjoined upon them, not only the innocence of doves, but also the wisdom of serpents.”

Australia’s Prime Minister is refusing to declare a policy on “climate change”

She is proposing instead a plan to create a 150-member “Citizens’ Assembly” of rank-and-file Australians to decide . . . .

Well not exactly to decide . . . .

Didn’t she also say, “The role of this Citizens’ Assembly will not be to become the final arbiter or judge of consensus, but to provide an indication to the nation of the progress of community consensus etc. etc. ”?

So apart from “assembling” what is this “assembly” supposed to do?

In fact, their role in the government’s plans won’t even include a necessity for them to assemble.

Their function is to be something democratic-sounding to “respectable-ise” the governing party’s determination to perch on the fence about this issue until the election is over.

* * *

The Assembly is to consist of volunteers selected through census data and electoral rolls by “an independent authority”.

Sounds democratic?

Only if you say it fast and don’t think about it.

Especially don’t think back to Mr Rudd’s “2020 Summit”. How democratic was that?

Out of 1000 Summit delegates, just one voted against Australia becoming a Republic.

Nobody could even pretend that only 0.1 percent of ordinary Australians were at that time anti-republic.

That Summit was a scam and a sham – far from democratic.

* * *

Is democracy so important to strive after, anyway?

Doesn’t democracy mean putting the nation’s leader-selection into the hands of a population of TV-watchers – whose decisions merelyreflect what the owners of the media tell them is best.

The media don’t address issues on a rational basis. Their every decision is a commercial decision.

* * *

The Church, on the other hand, could and should think things out on a rational, God-related basis.

Every Sunday, priests address millions of Australians in churches. 

Do they speak on moral issues with a unified voice, based on the Faith, un-influenced by popularity with the media or anybody else?

If they did, the nation would change in a big way and in a hurry.

But at present there is too much division, desire to be “relevant” etc.

So the media is able to pick out a “liberal” priest here and a “conservative” priest there — and to represent the Church’s position as being whatever they choose.