The marriage of Joseph and Mary

Super Flumina

under the patronage of St Joseph and St Dominic

By the rivers of Babylon there we sat and wept, remembering Zion;
on the poplars that grew there we hung up our harps. . . Ps 136

St Dominic


Philosophy behind this website

Professor Solomon's Introduction to Philosophy

11th September 2001


Australia's Catholic Bishops

Australian Catholic Bishops should say

Australia's Support for Legislation Worthy of Adolf Hitler


Bill of Rights




Church's Fathers & Doctors

Church's Teaching on Divorce, Contraception and Human Sexuality

Compatible sites


David Attenborough

Defamation of Catholicism

Discipline & the Child

Dismissal of the Whitlam Government

Economic Problems

Evangelium Vitae 73



Freemasonry & the Church

God is not Material

Harry Potter



Letter of St Paul to the Hebrews

Mary MacKillop

Miscellaneous Papers



Moral Issues

Non-directional Counselling

Papers written by others


Politicians & the Catholic Church

Pope Benedict XVI

Pope Leo XIII

Pope Pius XII

Popes on St Thomas



Religious Freedom

Questions for Catholic Parents in Parramatta

Research Involving Embryos Bill - Letter to the Prime Minister

Sts John Fisher & Thomas More

Science and Philosophy


Subversion of Catholic Education


Thomas Merton

Vatican II

For young readers:

Myall Lakes Adventure

© 2006 Website by Netvantage




Download this document as a word document.

Catholics who vote for the Australian Labor Party should study the interview between Kerry O’Brien and Peter Garrett on the ABC program, The 7.30 Report, broadcast on 10 th June 2004. In the course of it the following interchange occurs––

O’Brien: [In his 1990 interview with you] David Leser talked about your deep commitment to Christianity and your conservative views on issues like abortion and reproductive technology. Are you still, broadly speaking, opposed to abortion?

Garrett: Well, I think those social issues that you are raising are ones which are for private decisions by people. I think it’s preferable if abortion doesn’t happen, but I understand there are circumstances when it does. I think issues of personal faith are always hard ones to bring into the political arena. On those issues that are social issues, again, I’ll be bound by policy and I’ll be loyal to the Labor policy.

Yes. A LaborParty politician is bound by the LaborParty policy on abortion, as is every other member of the Party. Here it is—

As women are the major users of health, community and support services, Labor will… support the rights of women to determine their own reproductive lives, particularly the right to choose appropriate fertility control and abortion…[1]

The policy has been in force in this form since 1984.

Any Catholic who is also a member of the LaborParty is bound to say with Peter Garrett—On those issues… I’ll be loyal to the Labor policy. That is, he must subordinate the teachings of God’s Church to his allegiance to the Party. Any Catholic voter who votes for the LaborParty votes to support this policy in defiance of the teachings of God’s Church.

The Question

Do Catholics who become, or remain, members of the LaborParty, know what they are doing? The same question can be asked of Catholics who vote for the Party. Or do they deliberately close their minds to the demands of their religion?

It would seem that there four factors which contribute to the Labor Catholic syndrome—1) the noble inclination to support the underdog; 2) a tradition of family adherence to the Party; 3) the view that there is no perfection in political parties and one must needs involve oneself in a compromise, balancing good and evil, and choosing the least evil; and, finally, and most importantly; 4) ignorance of moral principle in the matter.

Inclination to support the underdog—The LaborParty is regarded as the party of the worker; of the poor; of the oppressed. It began that way, as an organised opposition to the systematic oppression exercised by the mainly Protestant rich over a mainly Catholic poor. It stood up for the rights of the man who had no property, no title to exercise his rights to freedom save that which he could attain by the work of his hands. It had a noble beginning.

Nor could any complaint be made of the LaborParty if it had not undertaken as policy something essentially evil. Differences in politics are part of the freedom that attaches to every man. The maxim attributed to the great St Augustine is to the point—in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas, that is, in essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; but in all things, charity. But unfortunately, the aspirations that characterised a great party in the beginning, have been dissipated; the party has been hijacked.

Family Tradition—Change is difficult, and the impetus to change one’s political allegiance especially so when one’s family has for generations supported what used to be a great political party. But political institutions can change. The Labor Party has long since lost its way. It is no longer the party of justice for the poor and the weak. It betrays those principles when it extols ‘the rights’ of women to kill their innocent unborn at whim. It is no longer the party of the honest working man. Increasingly, it has become the party of the atheist, the secular humanist and the feminist and, driven by their hateful agenda, opposed to God and to His Church.

Necessary Compromise—Yes. Politics do involve compromises. And one must share a platform with those whom otherwise one might avoid. But not in matters of principle. One may disagree with one’s fellows as to how a certain good may be achieved. But one would never agree with him that the means to the desired end should involve lying, or murder, or theft. Nor can one agree that giving support to women should include allowing them to kill their unborn.

Ignorance Of Moral Principle—There are, doubtless, many Catholics who join the Labor Party or who vote in favour of its candidates, intending to do good. But the Party––the thing itself––is flawed. Its policies in this fundamental matter, are opposed to God’s law.

Many, if not most of them, do so because of a failure to distinguish between the natural, or inherent, end (finis operis) of their actions, and the intended end (finis operantis). In every moral act both ends must be good. One may intend in doing some act, to do good, but if the act one does is itself evil, the action is evil and a good intention will not redeem it[2]. Society is not an end in itself; it only exists for the sake of its members. Its special function is to protect the poor and the weak. A vote for a party with a pro abortion policy is an endorsement of the evil for which the party stands, the subordination of one member of society for the benefit of another. It is worse than a vote for slavery.

The problem over lack of moral direction has festered in the Catholic Church in Australia for thirty years and more because of the failure of the Catholic faithful to understand the principles of the moral law. This has occurred because of the failure of Australia’s Catholic bishops to proclaim to the faithful in their care that one may not choose immoral means to achieve morally good ends.

Australia’s Catholic Bishops

It would seem that the last Australian Catholic bishop to direct the faithful in his care to vote against the LaborParty was Bishop Bernard Stewart of the Diocese of Sandhurst, Victoria, in November 1972. He was critical of the attitude of the leader of the Party, Gough Whitlam, and of a number of its representatives, in favour of abortion. He was supported by Archbishop Young of Hobart and by Bishop Fox of Sale, and more ambivalently, by Archbishop Freeman of Sydney. Significantly, Bishop James Carroll, Auxilliary bishop of Sydney and a known supporter of the LaborParty, when requested, declined to give his support to the stand.

Since 1972 the situation has changed dramatically for the worse. What was the professed view of some only of Labor’s elected representatives became, in 1984, part of the policy of the Party. Yet, when the bishops ought, as one, to have raised their voices in condemnation of the Party and directed Catholics not to vote for its representatives, they remained silent.

A clever political device helped to dissuade them from standing up for Catholic principle––a resolution, adopted by the Labor Party at its conference two years prior to the adoption of the 1984 resolution, that any decision made by the Party on the matter of abortion is not binding on any member of the Party.

The two resolutions largely contradict each other. They can be resolved only in this way––the Party, as party, supports the right of women to abortion but no member, as individual, is bound by the decision. But he is bound as a member of the Party and he may not dissent publicly from the policy, as Peter Garrett well recognised.

The ‘conscience’ clause has enabled Party hacks to pretend that any suggestion that the Party has as part of its platform an official policy to kill the innocent, was ‘false and misleading’. The bishops, it would seem, were taken in by this nonsense and remain today dupes of Labor Party propaganda.

There is no Australian bishop who will stand up for principle against this evil policy of the Australian Labor Party and instruct the Catholic faithful in his care not to vote for the Party’s endorsed candidates. Not one! Nor would any one of them ever dare suggest that, since its policy is irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church, no Catholic may become, nor remain, a member of the Party.

Michael Baker


[1] _making_equality_real

[2] This issue is at the heart of the debate over the correct interpretation of Pope John Paul’s words in the third paragraph of n.73 of his encyclical Evangelium Vitae which many argue allow a parliamentarian, in certain circumstances, to vote in favour of a pro abortion law. Yet the Pope has said clearly in the same section of the encyclical— In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it .