In which the pond indulges in an ungracious Sunday meditation ...

With the news from Queensland too grim for the southern reptiles to bear, the Sunday Terrorists decided to serve up a complete lack of grace from a man who purports to a state of grace.

It took the pond back to the good old days when the Sunday Terror could be relied on for a meditation from the Pellists. But is the new ungracious firm so unlike the old lack of grace?

   

Ah sweet shared memories and looks of mutual adoration ... and the lack of substance is pretty much the same too ...

Of course the pond was most disappointed, not with the lack of grace - that's a given - but with the Terror illustration ...

It was a fair average frock, but certainly not up to the standard of your exceptional Pellist frock, and really not up to the standard of the best Fisher of men togs ...

By golly that's a good gaggle of gowns ... and there's plenty of other frocks to be found ...

  

Now there's not much point having an argument, statistical or otherwise, with the Fisher of men ...

Besides, he was given a good theological spanking some time ago by Paul Collins at John Menadue's Pearls and irritations here  in an open letter which inter alia included these sorts of bon mots...

Like many Australian Catholics, I am disturbed by your identification of your personal views on marriage equality with those of the Catholic Church. No one questions your right to hold such views, but many are concerned when you identify them—or allow others, such as journalists—to identify them with the teaching of the Church. You must be aware that, as Archbishop, journalists will take what you say as authoritative and as pitching “the Catholic Church in a heated battle against Labor and key backers of the Yes campaign”, as reported in The Australian on 14/8/17. You may be involved in a “heated debate” with the Labor Party and the “yes” campaign, but most Australian Catholics are not...

...The saddest thing is that you have linked Catholicism with some of the most reactionary and unattractive political forces in the entire country. You may agree with such people, but please don’t identify our church with them. Also, Sydney Anglican diocese and the Australian Christian Lobby represent a tiny proportion of Christians in Australia and their conservative evangelical emphasis has little in common with Catholicism. Your joining with them is clearly a “marriage of convenience.” My request is that you take these issues into consideration before you go on the record again claiming that your views represent those of Australian Catholicism. They don’t. Thank you, sincerely, Paul Collins.

There's a lot more between those opening and closing pars, but the pond was reminded of sundry difficulties involving pearls and swine ...

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you... 

None can make goodly silke of a gotes fleece...

There is no point seekinge too make a silke purse of a Sowes eare...

And so on, and speaking of irritations, there was a lovely local story in the Fairfaxian press ...

Golly gee, thanks local Labor party. The pond will remember that contribution to community harmony ...

Sweating a little more now that at last Lee Rhiannon has been kicked down the food chain and so locals can at last think about going the full greenie?

Now in all this the pond almost forgot the Fisher of men, but that's the point of a Sunday meditation ... all sorts of passing Passas clowns can score a mention, and not just those with a sublime lack of grace, as they don the black to feign a lack of interest in frocks ...

Uh huh, so where, pace Paul Collins, does this put the ungracious one, at least in terms of Terror links?

Yep, down there with the narcissist arm breaker ... which might help explain the sublime hypocrisy and flexible double think the ungracious Fisher of men shows in relation to the matter of divorce, coupled with a resolute refusal to live and let live ... (don't expect the Latham link to work, the pond never links to arm breakers) ...

Well yes, some would suggest that the Fisher of men has a way with statistics roughly equivalent to his way with theology ...

It was not until the early twelfth century that marriage came to be recognized as a sacrament and it was not until the 24th session of the Council of Trent in 1563 that it was declared a sacrament. So, for 1500 years of church history marriage operated largely according to societal rather than theological norms. 
Your fellow Dominican, Saint Thomas Aquinas, is interesting on marriage. Discussing the sacramental nature of marriage, he says that it is a sacrament “in so far as it represents the mystery of Christ’s union with the Church.” He continues that “[as to] other advantages…such as the friendship and mutual services which husband and wife render one another, its institution belongs to the civil law” (Summa Theologica, Suppl., q. 42, a. 3). This would indicate that marriages that don’t reflect the union of Christ and the church are not sacramental and therefore are solely subject to the civil law. Surely this applies to gay marriage? 
In fact, the arguments put forward in Don’t Mess and in your recent media interventions, are really drawn from an early-twentieth century, bourgeois notion of marriage which found a slightly more modern, post-World War II expression, in the nuclear family. Catholic theological reflection on marriage was sparse right-up to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which at least recognized that the mutual fulfillment in the love of the spouses was one of the fundamental “ends”, or purposes of marriage.

Bourgeois?

Oh the pond loves it when the talk turns dirty ...

And so, in honour of this temporary revival of Sunday meditations, the pond thought it might go to the vault and get out some old hits and memories just for old times' sake ... though if the Fisher of men keeps up his ungracious black knight routines, who knows, it might be time to revive the Sunday meditation in earnest ...