So the answer, as always, turns out in the end to be: "Because I can't help it." Or at least, "Because I don't think I can help it." Fine: but an admission of helplessness is no use to anyone. Luckily there are plenty of people who CAN help it available to expose this vile and corrupt institution, and their numbers are growing all the time.

Being a long-time troubled-listener to Geraldine Doogue on RN, I'm glad to read her thoughts and have an opportunity to base a comment on more than just fleeting impressions. Geraldine, along with many others at the ABC, is living proof that the ABC is far from the left-wing bastion it's often made out to be. Indeed it's absolutely institutional and rarely does a radical voice receive a earnest hearing.
But back to Geraldine, who's perhaps the ABC's institutional figurehead and superciliously oversees the radical voices that break like combers against her proud prow. One can often sense her disdain when those who dare to thumb their own noses at the institutional religion, politics, economics and ethics she supports. Sometimes she's quite explicit, intolerant and dismissive in her eloquent, plummy way, yet she offers no real argument against those free radicals she patently despises, only her magisterial displeasure, politely and jovially disguised. Sorry I have no instances at hand, but I've heard it time and again.
As for the article, I find my impressions born out. Geraldine has such a strong sense of vocation, as she says herself; indeed I'd call it self-importance; the way she holds forth and questions herself rhetorically--stagily--and talks of epiphanies. As if her insights are of great moment and she's compelled to share them, that we all might benefit. As if she's capable withing her institutional mindset of the radical humility Christ exampled and the Catholic Church has parodied ever since. She's not. Her faith holds. But faith in what?

This article seems to demonstrate that the old Catholic adage that: "If we get them early enough, they are ours forever!" holds true. Geraldine can't escape her indoctrination no matter what.

It proves that exposing small children to religious indoctrination is equivalent to child abuse!

…The Catholic Church is marked by radicalism from the start: Maybe now is the time for the church to deconstruct its “formalisms”, and join the world which Geraldine Doogue has acknowledged, (as a practising Catholic), actually exists.

…The Catholic Church has proved its success in crushing dissent, since before the times of the “Arians”; "will anything change"?, Geraldine reluctantly asks

David G's response of typical of the current wave of irrational religious paranoia sweeping the community. Christian religions contain some very worthwhile lessons and have been one of the bases of Western progress in the last 200yrs. Its wise not to confuse christian principles with the problems of institutional churches. That's like dismissing Science because there are corrupt scientists.

The Catholic Church and others sets Christ up as a scapegoat and then appoint another human to grant redemption. The late Christopher Hitchens summed up the faults of such a system better then I can.

He wrote;
I find something repulsive in the idea of vicarious redemption.
I would not throw my numberless sins on to a scapegoat and expect them to pass from me; we rightly sneer at the barbaric societies that practice this unpleasantness in its literal form. There is no value in the vicarious gesture anyway.

As Thomas Paine pointed out, you may if you wish take on a debt, or even offer to take the debtor’s place in prison. That would be self-sacrificing. But you may not a assume his actual crimes as if they were your own; for one thing you didn't commit them and might have died rather than do so; for another this impossible action would rob him of individual responsibility.

The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves.
Christopher Hitchens - Letters to a Young Contrarian –Ch. 9 P5

Geraldine appears to be making progress on that hard task.

'It proves that exposing small children to religious indoctrination is equivalent to child abuse!'

Thats right David G and that is why secularist are so keen to indoctrinate the kids with their something from nothing faith before they can think at all. Unfortunately by the time they are old enough to think its likely the kids would of blown their brains on drugs and alcholol.

'The late Christopher Hitchens' as opposed to the very alive Jesus Christ. Says it all.

Religious institutions, as such, are not the only
arbiters of religious experience. They don't own
the Truth, for Truth cannot be owned. Nor should
they think they hold some franchise on our
spiritual life. They are consultants and frameworks,
but they are not God Himself. We shouldn't confuse
the path with the destination.

Quite a few people turned away from religion, found
that life without a conscious awareness of God is
difficult, and now they're back because, that is,
theoretically, where to find Him. But they did not
go back as the spiritually half-interested, complacent
congregants that many of their parents were when they
were growing up. They've come back with an interest in
actually having a religious experience.

Organised religion can't remain the same. It will have to
step up to the bar, religiously, or it will wither away.
Organised religious institutions are in for a huge
transformation, for the simple reason that people have
become genuinely religious in spite of them.

runner
Christ is only alive in your head and the head of the others who have been indoctrinated. He probably never ever lived.

It is often those who have accepted the "revealed truths" and later found them wanting who then turn to drugs and other self destructive behavior. Or it can be the unfortunate children of those who are not interested in their children.

Such people had not undertaken for themselves, when younger, the hard task that Hitchens describes. If you read Hitchens you find that he deplored dishonesty and hypocrisy.

I find it interesting how the discussion of these subjects on OLO generally starts with the villification of the writer. So far there's been little to no discussion of what Geraldine actually said.

As a Protestant I found the piece interesting. I would never feel that failure in the institution of the denomination that I belonged to undermined my Christianity. Christians expect failure. The church is made for sinners. Religion exists outside the institution, not because of it. The religion may be present in the institution, but it will always be in an imperfect way.

So while a failure in the institution should be condemned, it doesn't invalidate the belief.

However Catholics are more heavily invested in the concept of The Body of Christ and The People of God so I think, as evidenced by Geraldine's piece, tend to see failures, when they occur, not just as institutional failings, but as failings of substance.

I'm not sure exactly why this should be but suspect it is because for over 1000 years the church provided the civil service of many European countries and was part of the state, so that belief has to a certain extent become subsumed into belonging, in the same way that being Australian isn't a statement of belief, but a statement of where you live and are accepted as a citizen.

Regardless of the condition of the institutional "catholic" church (which is now rotten to the core at the very highest levels) it is primarily a power-and-control-seeking business corporation competing for market-share in the whats-in-it-for-me market place of consumerist religion.

This is a classic example of the whats-in-it-for-me exoteric religiosity which is the only kind of religion that now exists in the world.
What religious insitutions tend to provide is social association and optimistic aint-life-wonderful talk, perhaps in combination with self-applied tecniques that people can use as a means for consoling themselves. Instead of cultures of comprehensive right practice, there are workshops and study groups. Even of Ignatian "spirituality" But does anyone seriously practice such "spirituality" or even live the highly disciplined life which IS necessary for such practice to have any real transformative affect.

In todays humanly created world everyone, including all of those who presume to be religious (as supposedly distinct from secular) is obsessively preoccupied with what is "out there". What they do with one another in the common world. Everyone is involved in the mere exchange of words, socializing with one another, and relating to the other aspects of the common world with which they are associated. Thus when people are involved in religion they make merely token and inevitably self-involved gestures in the direction of religion. Such is the thoroughly institutionalized exotericism of what is conventionally called religion.

The exclusive preoccupation with what is "out there" is a disposition that is now manifested everywhere on Earth - with dreadful results. Listen to the global "daily News" of terrible violence and threats. Much of it perpetrated and encouraged by religious true believers.

Look at the absolute emptiness of consumer egoity whether so called religious, or secular. It is madness.

They are interesting thoughts from Geraldine Doogue but they obviously are the product of keeping beliefs limited to a fortunate personal experience of life. Yes, no doubt there has been pain as we all experience it to more or lesser degrees, but still, such a way of thinking allows the thinker to accept a ‘plan’ of life with other people having a different ‘plan’ bestowed upon them.

In the billions, for the all animals including people, the other ‘plans’ are dismal beyond any kind of proper ethical considerations, especially if devised by an all loving, all knowing and all powerful god. Recognising these contradictory attributes is the first step in working out that maybe more than ‘truth’ is at play here.

The simple fact may be that we have a genetic-propensity to accept supernatural soothers as a way of handling consciousness and the knowledge of our own eventual deaths. The second step, and this is most important, is that supernatural soothers take on a myriad of different forms depending on geographic location. Some of these have a consistent theme but are certainly at variance in many tenets and traditions. Aztecs, Indians, Middle Eastern, Romans, Greeks, Polynesian Islands, Norse cultures demonstrate the inconsistencies.

To deny that cultural childhood indoctrination is a hugely strong component to the beliefs retained in adulthood is most definitely not seeing the dinosaur in the phone box.

A third step is to realise that as a generalisation, the more scientifically literate is a person, the less likelihood that they are convinced by supernatural soothers as being anything but a product of the mind. Singular examples opposite to this are not proof of anything but the compartmentalising power of our genetic-propensities and effectiveness of childhood induction.

Conclusion: Religion in most case is not an informed decision.

David

It is somtimes said that rottenness and decay start from the head down, and thus spreads to the rest of the body. I do not know if this is true but it certainly provides a suitably apt metaphor for the state of the "catholic" church in 2012. Which is to say that in 2012 the head of the "catholic" church as represented and dramatized by the vatican is thoroughly rotten.

And of course what makes the catholic church especially rotten is that all of what was done and justified by the bogus claim that the church is the "body of christ" and that it is/was doing things as the "work of christ" and/or for the "glory of god".

This rottenness now infects the institutional church all-the-way-down. Such was/is an evitable process. It is well known in the business and political world that if the leadership is corrupt and venal then that venality WILL INEVITABLY affect everyone who works for it. Or in the case of politics lives withinthe collective body politic.

What is more the rotten apples, in the form of opus dei and similar "traditionalist" outfits now control every aspect of the "official" church's cultural and political agendas.

But then again it was always thus so. Check out The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby.

Papal "catholic" rotteneness 101:

http://www.popeaccountability.org
http://popecrimes.blogspot.com.au

Plus the Enlightened Catholicism website/blog.
And of course once again The Popes War Against the Church by Matthew Fox.

Daffy Duck asked

"But does anyone seriously practice such "spirituality" or even live the highly disciplined life which IS necessary for such practice to have any real transformative affect".

I doubt there would be many.

I can't help remembering going to church when young and seeing many a local Reservoir lout there. I suppose it helped them get over their many sins.

Sure religion give many hope and direction, but i remain agnostic but respective of Chritianity's principles.

As the recent Four Corners show indicated, however, institutions that dont deal with their many wrongs are a joke.

Geraldine's article shows clearly she is frantically wriggling on a hook, one that was inserted into her mouth when she was an innocent child, one totally unaware of the vested interest of cunning, manipulative clerics.

Religion is an insult to intelligence and no more than a crude crutch for the weak.

I'm probably not a very good Catholic.
I'm convinced that organised religion has
become in many cases as calcified as other
institutions that form the structure of our
modern world. Our religious institutions
have far too often become handmaidens of the
status quo, while the genuine religious
experience is anything but that. I've come to
see that true religion is internal, not external.
The spirit within us can't be blamed for the
blasphemies carried out in its name. What some
have done in the name of religion, projecting
their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the
world, does not (in my humble opinion) make
religion as a mystical phenomenon invalid.

I have read the book by Paul Collins, "Believers:
Does Australian Catholicism Have a Future?" to
which Geraldine Doogue wrote the forward. And I
also am optimisitc as Collins tells us that -
"Catholicism in Australia will survive, certainly
with lesser numbers, but with more commitment and
ministerial energy." However as Collins also states,
"But to achieve that Catholics will require genuine
local leadership and a willingness to confront both
the difficulties and opportunities that the church
faces."

I can only hope that in Australia as Collins tells us -
"we are uniquely placed to be able to do precisely that."
Only time will tell.

I am a retired nurse/midwife. Whenever I see or hear of Gerladine Doogue I have a vivid recollection of listening to an interview she did on ABC Radio's Life Matters. The interview was about late term abortions. It could have been about an exciting new cake recipe, she was so upbeat about it. No one would have thought it was about killing unborn children. There was no gravitas, sobriety or sadness expressed. I opened the car door and physically dry retched. I would have expected a Catholic..one espousing the Ignatian philosophy as she does to explain why she is still a Catholic,to have dissociated herself from the barbarity under discussion. For decades now Geraldine Doogue has maintained a powerful and immensely influential position in the media. But in doing so she has toed the demonstrably pro abortion media line. Which conjures up to me the interchange during an eventide garden walk between St.Ignatius to whom she refers and the young Francis Xavier. " What doth it profit a man Francis, to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of one's soul?" I am not suggesting for one moment that Geraldine Doogue is in danger of losing HER soul but that St Ignatius did seem to emphasise the transitory nature of worldly position compared to the more transcendental.

Never mind that Ignatius founded the Jesuits which as a "Catholic" order has been responsible for the "creation" of mountains of bloodied human corpses.

Denny

A representative of Jesus Christ would not epouse the killing of the unborn. Spiritually blinded to the core and yet accepting of 'spirituality '. You are right in your summary.

It was King Constantine of Rome who created the Roman Catholic Church.It had very little to do with Christian teachings.Still today we have wel intentioned slaves to the Church who do good deeds but the hierarchy are just as corrupt as those of the Middle Ages.

The Catholic Church helped many Nazis escape justice after WW2.They protect paedophile priests and deny their obminations.Religion is all about controlling people and the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for.

In no way am I defending the Catholic Church but it must be realised that it runs as a theological oligarchy or at times as a dictatorship and such has performed reasonably well in those roles unlike other ideological contenders trying the same thing , creating utter chaos in the attempt. Sure, it has run off the rails over many issues and been involved in all kinds of mass murder, genocide and mayhem but still, not a bad record for a long-term running tyrannical system.

Trouble is, it has hit this thing called democracy and that has caused it immense problems. Holding onto medieval notions, it has infiltrated governments and even the United Nations and is causing strife all over the globe. It has one goal and that is to keep its anachronistic ideas going against free people who do not accept that.

Democracy and theocracy cannot exist as partners and one or the other has to prevail. Looking at the thrashing around in its death throes by Mother Church very clearly shows democracy will be the victor and MC knows it.

The surprising thing is that people expect such a system to work without any kind of checks and balances and are shocked when it doesn’t. It would be more surprising if it did not make huge blunders and sadly it will continue to do so because its inherent structure has not changed as humanity has changed where decisions more so than ever before, are now based in empirical evidence.

If religious folk wish to keep this left over fossil from the past alive, then they should be allowed to do that. The proviso is that democracies need a clear and defined codification of separation between ‘church and state’ where neither one advantages or disadvantages the other.

David

Each to their own I guess.
Perhaps when some of our young, healthy, enlightened posters are on their deathbed, about to exit this life, they may have an about face & cling onto whatever slight ray of hope that brings them peace.
But hey, let's worry about that tomorrow.
No-ones perfect.

Death is just another aspect of life, and it comes naturally to each of us when we grow into old age. There is no fear and no expectation or hope of an afterlife, our life has been lived, and now is the time to move on.

God is a human invention through which we manage our primitive inclinations by the application of our higher brains and sensibilities; some would say God is the method by which we refine and justify our primitive inclinations; certainly absolution in the Catholic Church is one of the greatest methods of crowd control ever invented; sins are designated which are impossible to not commit, a tacit recognition of our primitive selves, and forgiveness, for a price, including loyalty to the institution, is provided for the inevitable contravention.

That there are so many religions with their own Gods is testimony to both the fact that God is a human invention, as is culture, and the futility of any one religion seeking dominance. It also contradicts the narcissism of those who allign their ego with a religion and use that self-subjugation to taunt, oppress and vilify any who don't belong or commit as they do. Ms Doogue's piece is a minor example of that form of narcissism.

Paul Collins in his book, "Believers: Does
Australian Catholicism have a future?"
points out that:

"I would have thought it difficult to argue
convincingly that Australia is the most secular
place in the world. Certainly parts of Europe
could make a strong claim, including Benedict's
own Germany, or France, where Catholicism has
suffered long-term decline. Australians are not
crass materialists, nor are they secular, lazy
beach-loving slobs. And the local branch of
Catholicism, while it may be seriously ill, is
not yet in its terminal stages. Benedict's XVI's
perceptions about Australian "Godlessness" may
be explained by the fact that our religiosity
is non-dogmatic, egalitarian and simply doesn't
take institutional authority seriously..."

Collins continues: " most of us are rather independent,
sceptical and rather laid back. What we don't agree
with, we ignore. This doesn't mean that we're not
spiritual in understated ways. We can be surprisingly
reverent in unexpected places, like the bush. All the
evidence suggests that there is a strong belief in
the transcendent; this is especially true of those
who are in touch with our extraordinary landscape and
nature. Perhaps Australians are quietly spiritual, rather
than explicitly religious, holding what historian
Manning Clark called, "A shy hope in the heart."

Carnivore writes;
"Perhaps when some of our young, healthy, enlightened posters are on their deathbed, about to exit this life, they may have an about face & cling onto whatever slight ray of hope that brings them peace".

At almost 82 I don't match your criteria. Live your life fully, while willingly helping others less well off (as recommended by Peter Singer and others), and the approach of the end will not worry you. Thinking or worrying about something that may not have happened 2000 years ago when the homo species have been around for a few million years if a deluded, debilitating and wasteful effort.

About all I thing I will miss, or rather miss out on out on, is the ability to know how the human race will solve the problems of its future. I know that no religion will play a major part if finding whatever constructive solutions are necessary.

I hope to die still curious about such matters.

Foyle,

Most eloquently spoken and echoed by a rapidly growing number of people who have wrenched their being from those who erroneously state they have all the answers.

Your words express the poetry of that part of humanity that requires no false hope to be able to live life the only life available in the fullest possibly way.

Goodonya.

David

I, like Graham Y, am astonished at the failure of most posters to address the essence of Geraldine's article, but have rather simply vented their bile at the institution which Geraldine herself has taken pains to point out is imperfect and in need of revision to meet the expectations of its parishioners. (Lexi is a notable exception.)

Does Geraldine abhor the sexual abuse and the cover-ups? Certainly, that is made quite clear. But you choose only to twist the knife. Pathetic. She has bared her anguish and concern, and all you do is jeer. (Or attack features or failings of her 'public' life. How sad, and how very 'human'.) How many of you have undertaken such a depth of re-appraisal of your convictions? Few, I would venture.

Squeers, do you listen to yourself?

>"As if her insights are of great moment and she's compelled to share them, that we all might benefit. "< Talk about calling the kettle black!

My story. My mother was quite a devout Catholic, but in a quiet, solemn, personal way. She was also a wonderful human being, a great mother, and kind to all. One would be very hard pressed to find a better person in any of these categories, let alone all of them. She was my example, and I have tried to live up to her expectations. A mammoth task, and I have failed in some categories. But I continue to adhere to the underlying teaching and example as well as I can. (Unfortunately I have not been able to adhere entirely on this thread.)

I, as Geraldine (and I believe most sensible Catholics) also abhor the institutional failings of the Church, but I too am hopeful of the required revision, for I too believe the teachings in what it means to be a good person are worth preserving and expounding.

As for some of the attacks on the Church, have some of you considered the impacts of radical Islam lately? But, we are tolerant - until there is a march down George Street yelling "Allah Akbach". (I too have my limits.)

Saltpetre

quite well put.

Saltpetre,
sometimes the things you say are "quite well put", other times you talk rubbish.
Geraldine Doogue is a fine example of the modern phenomenon of "journalistic celebrity", wherein instead of reporting the news it's the reporter front and centre, hence the snippet of mine you've cut and pasted, which was originally couched in the context of my being a "long-time troubled-listener". I enjoy the rich, fruity bouquet with which Geraldine holds forth, but the way she gushes optimistically over the human spirit etc., like pollyanna, is not to my taste. I like a dry wine and she's more like a Muscat.
Her article is case in point, there's lots of pussy-footing around her fine institution but there is no "essence", or substance, to anything she says:
<I know the Church frames my identity, as basic as that. It's the source of consolation without peer. I can't slough it off: it's too embedded in the way I see the world and myself">
The same applies to her Liberal politics. But what about journalistic objectivity: fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, nonpartisanship?
These are the principles journalism was built on. Instead, Geraldine and many others, if not most these days, set themselves up, or are professionally groomed, as role models, and we're encouraged to worship at their shrines. We no longer get the raw news, which we're no longer capable of contemplating critically anyway; it's all pre-masticated and dripping with the saliva of populism.

I have to admit that that I've long admired Geraldine Doogue's demeanour and her approach to exploring the human penchant for spirituality. I also see bravery and insight in this article. She's attempting to put her finger on just what it is that nourishes her Catholic faith - and finding the germ of that faith not only in the traditions of the institutional church (tainted as it is), but more so in the mental and moral stability - the ballast of meaning - that is at the heart of each individual's journey through the secular world.

I have friends who are regular church-attending Catholics. They are the most balanced people I know. They had a big family, all of whom now have their own families, and even though these adult children have not embraced the regularity and faith of their parents, they all still cling to the hem of the churches apron, baptising their children and sending them to Catholic schools. It's as if their parents provide a sort of proxy faith, a continuum in which they themselves aren't required to make the effort, but one in which they still reside under the shelter of the church through the example of their parents. I've rarely seen a closer, less dysfunctional extended family than this one.

I think that's what Geraldine is trying to say, that it's Catholic people who take their experience of institutional Catholicism out into the world. They are essentially "it", and attitudes implicit and meaning derived from the mix of secular and church experience are what will mold the future of Catholicism.

That's interesting, Squeers.

I don't see a person such as Geraldine Doogue as some raw, cut and dried journalist who should stick to merely reporting the facts. If I want that, I'll stick to the news. If I choose to watch or listen to people like her, it's because I want them to say something that makes me think, to challenge my intellect and view of the world and humanity. What a waste it would be of people like Geraldine Doogue were bound to nothing but journalistic factuality - no exploration, no reaching beyond the bland substance of existence.

She's an articulate, compassionate and spiritually inquisitive human being. The media landscape is richer for people like her.

I'm reading this thread with Saturday Extra, which is anchored by Geraldine Doogue, running in the background. It is superb radio. Conversational and extremely informative. Geraldine has done her research, and more often than not puts quotes from one expert to another.

I've been a fan of Doogue's for years.

If you want to hear celebrity radio, then tune in to Late Night Live with Philip Adams. Philip spends far too much time injecting himself into the debate.

This conversation thread puts me in mind of an interview yesterday on Steve Austin's program: http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/08/religion-and-ethics-1.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning

Did you know that Christians are apparently the most persecuted religion in the world? Neither did I, but reading the threads on OLO it is not just something that happens in other countries.

Saturday Extra has long been a delightful start to the weekend for me and I admit that part of the appeal is the timbre or tone of Geraldine Doogue's voice as much as her presentation (not to be confused with journalism).

I've never found any of her interview subjects other than encouraged and given the chance to explain their position or opinion. I don't recall ever having paused to think whether she was Catholic or not.

Anyone who is self-reflective and introspective is spiritual to some extent – for some this finds expression in religion – for others, in the absence of it.

Maybe it's because of my protestant upbringing and I know this comment is somewhat simplistic but, it does summarise the issue I have with the article…

When asked their religion, I found most people (who are) will answer Christian and maybe then tell you where they worship except for Catholics who always answer Catholic first.

Form being more important than content? Or conforming being more important than being content?

@GrahamY: "Did you know that Christians are apparently the most persecuted religion in the world?"

Sorry, Graham, you'll have to explain how being given generous tax breaks and free media coverage, getting permission to set up and run your own doctrinaire schools at public expense, having employment laws waived on your behalf, being funded by the taxpayer to put your mouthpieces into schools and military units, and -- until recently -- knowing the law would turn a blind eye to your assaults and rapes equates to being 'persecuted'.

I can't see it myself. Maybe you should get someone else to explain what 'persecuted' means. You could start with a gay being denied the right to marry, or a terminally ill patient in pain being denied the right to a quick painless death.

PS: The US taxpayer currently subsidises religions -- including Christianity -- in the amount of 71 billion dollars per year:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4

That doesn't sound like 'persecution' to me.

WmTrevor et al,
The Science Show is not to be confused with journalism either, but that doesn't stop people criticising it for topical/political bias.
Everything's political and Doogue, in my opinion, is an apologist for the Liberal-consumer State. She commodifies institutional verities. They all do, more or less, she just does it with polish. I was trying to make the point above that just as the Catholic church "frames her identity", so do the other institutions she cleaves to. What then are her intellectual credentials? What room for critical thinking? Doogue is entitled to her views, I'm just concerned that she wields, and uses, wittingly or unwittingly, her influence and aplomb (which, as here, is more hyperbole than substance).
I also suggested above that "rarely does a radical voice receive a earnest hearing", at the ABC in general. I was thinking here of an interview between the late Alan Saunders and Slavoj Zizek on the Philosopher's Zone, during which the former laughed all the way through, sending a clear message that he wasn't to be taken seriously.
Surely people realise that the media is often the message, and that the pre-masticated, institutional thinking (non-thinking) we consume is rarely subjected to scrutiny?

Unfortunately, am too busy to go on just now.

Hi, Why I'm Still a Lapsed Catholic is captured in a new book - BEFORE THE DELUSION by Wm Gleeson, recently published in UK. The cover looks a little Dan Brownish but it actually contains impressive research of pre-Christian history - with a very novel perspective on some 'mysteries' of the early Church. It's heretical of course, but a coherent and plausible story. Explains and challenges early dogma.

Saltpetre - the very first thing that happens when the Living Process that is death begins is that ALL of your consoling religious beliefs about life and especially death get ripped off instantaneously - guaranteed.

In fact all of the usual naive Christian consoling beliefs about death actually prevent one from really investigating and thus becoming fully informed about and understanding the ALL important topic of death, of what happens when you die, and thus of consciously participating in the death and dying process.

Meanwhile, despite my criticisms of Geraldine's naive religiosity I have always found her various programs to be very good. She is one of the best in the business.

By the way I don't listen to the radio or watch TV.

The institutional "catholic" church as represented by the pope, the vatican, the cardinals and the bishops should always be subject to sustained criticism because of the nature of the claims it/they make about themselves - claims which are intrinsically offensive to all
non-"catholics", especially those that belong to other Faith traditions, and even liberal or progressive Christians, including liberal or progressive "catholics".
1. the "catholic" church is the "body of christ" and that it is thus
going the "work of 'christ'" in the world, and for the "glory of
god" - claims which are completely laughable - the evidence being
the mountains of human corpses "created" by the institutional
agents of the church, even by the popes themselves
2. the pope as the now infallible "vicar of Christ" - a claim which
is laughable - Jesus of course was NOT even a christian
3. the "catholic" church is THE ONLY source of truth in the world,
which thus has a claim on, and the right to rule ALL of humankind -
claim which is both laughable and even more, TOTALITARIAN in its
intent - a claim which is completely and dangerously false.
4. that the current pope is THE key for reviving the spiritual
heritage and thus the culture of the West - this claim is made by
most/all right-wing "catholic" propaganda hacks.Even via the ABC
Ethics website which is now controlled and edited by a right-wing
"catholic".
5. that the current pope and thus the church which he has stacked with
his misogynist right-wing "traditionalist" cronies is the ONLY
bastion against the alleged scourge or relativism in the Western -
a claim which is completely laughable (especially if anyone does
their homework)

"Why am I still a Catholic? How should I answer this important question? In truth, sometimes I'm not sure why"

I used to be accepting of peoples "beliefs", why ? because I was told that's what you did. However, the question posed is much like "why do I still believe in Father Christmas". One can't take much of what anyone says after that seriously.

No I am not mocking, would you mock a stranger that came up to you and said they still believed a fairytale ? Incredulous, sure... worried for their mental health, sure but definitely not mocking.

and the ONLY reason I ever bother to get into the "debate" (I am never going to convince anyone if they have "faith" Father Christmas exists, so it's not really a debate per se) is we have the insidious evil of groups like Family First, the ACL and any number of Cardinals and Imam's trying to foist there pernicious moral agenda upon everyone.

Daffy,

I'm too busy living to overly concern myself with dying; but I do concern myself with not being a burden to others, either in living or in dying - either during or after death.

Life is a gift, a responsibility and a challenge - and it is the manner in which we address the challenge and the responsibility which defines us. Death is just an end; and what, if anything, may come after is only a possibility - of nothing, of a new beginning, of an awareness, or merely recycling. We need to concern ourselves with now, this minute, this duty, this responsibility.

In my view, this responsibility extends beyond our immediate precincts of work, family, friends and community, to awareness and concern for and with the wider framework of humanity, of humankind, of Earth, nature, toil and future. We, all of humanity, have capacity, obligations and limitations, and, as with the butterfly flapping its wings on the far side of the planet, what we do and what we contribute has meaning and has consequences.

The best way to prepare for death is not to fear it, not to welcome it, but to always be ready for it.

Squeers,

I can just see you enjoying a cool, dry, astringent white (with your foie gras) with an aroma vaguely hinting of dark soil, of summer blossoms and green fruit, evoking images of Roman hills and grand marble structures. Life can scarcely get better. (But I suspect Geraldine could equally well appreciate a grand aged Cabernet or a sound but modest 'vin ordinaire'.)

Daffy, for a moment I thought you were human, but your last post assures me you are an armchair bigot. My mistake.

Daffy writes

'claims which are intrinsically offensive to all'

I don't find their claims offensive. They are wrong and can only be accepted by those blinded by dogma like secularist. Wrong yes, just like evolutionist who are blinded by dogma and pseudo science, offensive, no especially as Islam claims also to be the only true way. Jesus and the Scriptures clearly outline the way to salvation and none of the above fits the bill.

Squeers,

"...pre-masticated, institutional thinking..."

Well, yes, indeed. Since when did MSM engage in anything truly radical?

Radical is for underground coffee rooms and movements that grow out of hardship, disaffection, comradeship and the sharing of intellectual and philosophical opinion.

Perhaps the likes of Geraldine Doogue at least presses us to examine life from within the paradigm of our institutional reality. And even if rhetoric of a more radical nature found it's way into the mainstream - it is only talk. Most people balk when it comes to changing their state, especially when they're reliant on an institutional apparatus as the framework around which they entwine their lives.

In a way Geraldine Doogue I feel sorry for you.I was raised in the Catholic system and after many years am totally free from this oppressive system.

You don't need a religious organisation to reach some sort of spiritual enlightment.Religion has always been about controlling people.Their organisations always become more important than any concept of a "supreme being".

It is knowledge and the seeking of truth which gives us freedom and a better life.This is my religion.Religious dogma is mostly oppressive and serves the purposes of a few elites within that system.

The concept of god matters not to me.Most good people do the best they can and help other people without notions of an after life.That is true fidelity and courage which most religions cannot offer.

Fortunately or unfortunately I just see Geralidine as deluded.

The characters of our narratives have become so familiar to us that we tend to simply view our ancestors as us, separated only by time. I have watched the siege of Troy, the burning of the library of Alexandria and Gladiatorial games all carried out with clipped British accents as though everyone living in the past 10,000 years spoke the queen’s English. What happens in the reshaping of history through our narrative lens is, if you will, a cultural-morphic personification.

We attribute to our ancient cultures to our own cosmologies and create a linear relationship between our cultures. Now I am not saying that we are not the descendents of the ancients that preceded us and that they have not had a powerful influence upon us. What I am saying is that we distort our ability to truly empathise and understand the humanity of those who preceded us and in doing so we distort our ability to understand our own position in history and relationship to those that will follow us.

The truth is that the ancients were radically different cultures than ours. The stories they told about themselves are not the same as the ones we tell about them. Though we can only reconstruct their worlds now using what facts we know, it is important that we work to empathise with their reality as best we can so that we might understand our own more fully.

Religion remains a rock for those unfamiliar with a finite residence in time, as they say "Birth is a death sentence".

Arjay, i am in agreement with you on this one.

You could only argue that Christianity is about control if you knew nothing about Christian teaching and scriptures. Every Sunday, and many weekdays, in every Christian church, passages of scripture are read out urging the overturning of social order. The faith is based around the life and death of a guy who suffered the most extreme criminal punishment of his day and specifically ruled-out taking secular power.

Even if you argue that the institutional church has departed from the precepts of its founders, you can't deny that it still promulgates the subversive message.

You also can't deny that when you look at social welfare and human rights in this country as often as not the debate is led by people who have a Catholic background more than by those of other denominations of Christianity.

While I'm not a supporter of the Catholic Church I think Geraldine is selling the institution short.

Well, Graham Y, I am shocked and amazed. If this last post of yours is indicative of the credibility and impartiality of the OLO editing process, then something is very remiss.

>"..in every Christian church, passages of scripture are read out urging the overturning of social order."<

Messages of Christian Charity, love thy neighbour, judge not lest ..., etc, are "urging the overturning of social order"? What, for the better?
I am afraid you have a very distorted view of the fundamental tenets, lessons and teachings of the Catholic Church.

>"you can't deny that it still promulgates the subversive message."<

"Subversion" yet! Strong words - but are you sure you may not be referring to some earlier offerings of the Reverend Ian Paisley, or perhaps some IRA radical - or in what other specific context may you be offering this slander?

I have been a Catholic for 67 years and I have absolutely no idea where these strange, inflammatory and totally erroneous ideas of yours may have come from.

Words are powerful tools, and if you have some proof for your outlandish statements, please share them with us.

Fear, shame and guilt are the tools of indoctrination and are more effective at an early age, particularly when reinforced by parental trust.

A cult is always a cult, no matter how it's been marketed and will always be measured publicly by its worst aspects.

It's a difficult thing to break away from but in the end, it matters to no-one but yourself unless it impacts adversely on the lives of others.

Good luck and my best wishes with your life choices Geraldine, but who are you really trying to convince - others or yourself?

Saltpetre.

Ah come on.

Jesus was the ultimate subversive.

The problem as I see it is that in order to promulgate the message of Jesus - which tends to run counter to instinctive human behaviour - it was necessary to create a massive cranking slowly evolving institution....the type of entity that Jesus was preaching against. It's also central to the point to which Geraldine Doogue was referring in her reference to the functionality of the Catholic lay community.

Found this link which may interest you and Graham:

"The genius of the gospel lay in its power to move people away from the world of slavish, supine, blind-obedience and compulsive legalism into the freedom of the daughters and sons of God. Now that very same Gospel has been press-ganged anew into the servitude against which it originally protested and rebelled."

http://www.v2catholic.com/dtimbs/2012/2012-04-15the-people-of-God.htm

Graham Y,

Or, perhaps your contribution has just been structured in such a way as to allow for the sort of misinterpretation I may have made?

In defending the institution, and in countering claims that it pursues overt control in State affairs, your choice of terminology has, perhaps unwittingly, offered an interpretation of condemnation of that which you endeavoured to defend?

I may have been impulsive in my previous remarks, but intended no offence.

Saltpetre:

Consider injunctions to “love your enemy” and “welcome the stranger”. The social order of our world actually opposes these values but followers of Jesus are called to do so. Likewise, Jesus calls us to be free from both attachment to material wealth and domination by the drive to power, both of which are foundations of the everyday social order. In such ways the Christian faith urges, as Graham Y says above, “the overturning of the social order”.

And it is pertinent to this discussion to point out that the followers of Jesus are the Church. The people, rather than the institution, are the Body of Christ. As such it is the role of the people to expose and correct the faults of their institution—most of which are probably failures to adhere to the injunctions I have mentioned. This is what Geraldine Doogue has been getting at in her article.

Well Geraldine the strings are fraying, the problem is those who claim to "still being a Catholic" are unwittingly offering support, and while still "Attached" all the criticism in the world will count for nothing, because those who are committing the crimes will say they have complete support of the "faithful" and in their perverted brains think they have done nothing wrong.
If you do decide to cut the strings please be clear why you are doing it, then you may think about going back over some of the stories that embellished the "niceness" of the Catholic Church.

Apart from some South American Catholic offshoots, namely Liberation Theology, the universal church is anything but radical, it's primary function being to reconcile adherents with the rewards of the next world, thereby taking their minds off this world. They're not called the Roman Catholics for nothing. Jesus was indeed a radical and it's marvelous the way his teachings have been brought into the mainstream as the mainstay of modern decadent lifestyles--the pretty frocks and the peace be with you andf all the other hypocritical bunk.
Like I said above, the institutional church has been parodying Christ'
s teachings ever since.
What Graham fails to mention is the radicalism of the modern church is just lip-service--Catholic and Protestant.

...What Geraldine struggles to understand; or acknowledge as a fundamental problem in the Roman Catholic Church, is the historical structure of the “Episcopal polity”. It is this lack of democracy which allows the free hand of Bishops to stifle debate and hide crimes against the congregation.

...This circumstance is impossible under the democratic rule of “Congregationalism”, which is a feature of many post reformation protestant Churches, (including modern-day Evangelical and other non-denominational Churches).

...It is this structure which makes Catholics envious, but as Geraldine attests, is personally confusing and impossible for most Catholics to break-free, let alone reform: (Thus subscribing to deep seated resentments vented by the many posters above).

…The structure of the Roman Catholic Church is undemocratic by nature, and deserves to fail; as is evidenced by its refusal to deal effectively with obvious criminality embedded in the hierarchy; a criminality which the congregation is powerless to deal with!

...Second sentence clarity...

...It is this structure (Congregationalism), which makes Catholics envious, but as Geraldine attests,(Catholicism) is personally confusing and impossible for most Catholics to break-free, let alone reform: (Thus subscribing to deep seated resentments vented by the many posters above).

Squeers, there is no way you can support a claim such as "it's [the Roman Catholic Church's] primary function being to reconcile adherents with the rewards of the next world, thereby taking their minds off this world." For starters, it doesn't make sense. "Reconcile"? In what way does one have to be "reconciled with the rewards of the next world"? If you believe in them you get them. Reconciliation has no place in a concept of punishment or reward in another world.

And the Roman Catholic Church most often gets accused by many, including you in some of your posts, of spending too much time wielding worldly power.

It certainly doesn't eschew this world. Go to every major city in Europe, or North America, or South America, or Australasia,or Africa and much of Asia and you will find some of the largest and best hospitals are owned and run by the Catholic Church. You will find the same thing goes for schools, and to a lesser extent universities. This is an organisation that is very much engaged with this world as a way of changing it. They will also be one of the organisations engaged with the poor and those in distress.

In a lot of ways Catholics are more engaged with the secular world than Protestants, and than many secularists.

Contrary to what the author and certain commenters assert, the teachings of the Catholic Church do not give anyone, including bishops and priests, the right to misbehave or to cover-up misbehaviour.

Certain commenters have labelled the Church corrupt because of the failings of a small minority of its clergy. It would be interesting to see whether those commenters would label the Australian Defence Force corrupt because certain of its officers have gone out of their way to cover up rapes by ADF members.

It sounds to me as though Ms Doogue has come to a somewhat late realisation that everything which was drummed into her as a child was not the whole truth. As we grow into adults and learn more about the world we have an ongoing responsibility to audit our beliefs and test their accuracy against new information.

Kudos to her for undertaking this process in respect of her Church upbringing. The sad truth is that escaping from such long-established beliefs is far from easy - probably on a par with a two-pack-a-day smoker trying to quit cold turkey but she has made a start and that is great.

On the matter of religion I am a devout athiest. I believe that, long ago and far away, a man called Jesus Christ did indeed live a remarkable life and founded a movement which still exists in various forms today. He naturally riled the existing rulers who were not very tolerant of alternative ideas and paid a harsh price in line with the legal practises of the day.

Modern religions are all basically founded on the basis of ancient writings describing this man's life and accept his claim to be divine. This is where I beg to differ. Remarkable man, yes but divine - a resounding no.

Churches, throughout history have influenced Governments, sometimes benignly and sometimes for their own ends. This process continues in Australia today with far too many politicians influenced by institutions which are no longer relevant to most people as proven by declining church atendances.

I welcome comments like Ms Doogue's which put the focus on this problem and encourage people to ask these questions.

GrahamY,
I think it's clear I meant reconcile adherents to their earthly lot, with the promise of extraterrestrial life (where exactly this "other world" is, I wouldn't know.
I agree that the Catholic church "doesn't eschew this world"; I've said repeatedly above that it "parodies" and "pays lip service" to Christ's radical teachings.
Nevertheless its evolved function is symbiotic "support" for the prevailing order, rather than changing it. It's only in the post-colonial era and since the second Vatican council that the Catholic church has woken-up to the fact that its "missions" were in effect cultural/economic imperialism. But even given its new "sensitivities", and whatever its espoused intentions, its hardly aligned with the Gospels or genuine emancipation. Indeed, the current pope is a reactionary and has excommunicated Liberation Theology for being at odds with Church and State hierarchy and prevailing class structures!
The Catholic Church has no interest in "changing" the world; it is "engaged with the poor and those in distress" as a means of maintaining it, and of staying rich and influential in the process.
It's true that the church is vital to democratic capitalism, but that's also maintenance, since a free-market system would have been long-since overthrown. The rub is that democratic capitalism is unsustainable.
The Catholic church wears all the semblance of a compassionate organisation, but its sincerity is dubious at the top (as Doogue suggests) and delusional below. Doogue's gushing enthusiasm for "abundant life"--whatever that means in the context of her article, presumably not abundant procreation--is nothing more than a species of mystical Jouissance. Unless she cares to elaborate her epiphany for blockheads like me, I can only dismiss it as Western narcissism.

We all live in a big house with many windows. One opens a window on one side, sees the sunshine and says ' What beautiful sunshine; how good is MY sun!' Another one opens another window, sees the sunshine and also says, ‘What beautiful sunshine; how good is MY sun!’, and another, and another, and they do not realize that all the sunshine is from the same SUN!

Then there are others, who open a window, see the sunshine and say ‘What beautiful sunshine; but there is no sun!’ These I find difficult to understand.

Silly analogy, Lato - there is demonstrably a sun. No one can say the same of any god.

Raycom:

...There is no right to misbehave implied in my comment. I gave a comparison between the Catholic Church structure and the more Democratic non-denominational Protestant Christian movements in particular, as a reason for the failure of the Catholic Church to deal with Corruption.

...It is difficult to argue that the top down rule of the RC Church is a prime reason in the development of entrenched corruption, and their unwillingness to deal with the obvious anomalies, in particular the covering-up of paedophilia: In stark contrast to the RC Church, matters of discipline are initiated and concluded from the congregation level in most Protestant environments. This represents the true nature of the Christian church where the congregation are the “Church of Christ”.

..If you are (an) RC and offended by my comments, I can assure you none was intended. I have great respect for the honest folk of the RC Church; but not a lot for the entrenched culture of its hierarchy, when such of them smother corruption.

GY:

…I think you are missing a very basic point, the RC Church would continue to operate effectively as an institution, without a congregation at all. It is so overweighted with top-end structure, (and all the money control), that the will of the congregation is simply overruled in arrogance!

...Quite simply, the Roman Catholic Church is, (and again) quite obviously, a defective model of Christianity!

Candide_ but then we all reach our own conclusions using limited intelligence and using limited information.

Graham Y,

Thank you for your clarificationary post of 11.02pm on Sunday 12th - very well put.

Diver Dan,

>"the RC Church would continue to operate effectively as an institution, without a congregation at all."<

What a strange and ridiculous assertion. The Church IS the parishioners, physically and in spirit, and, contrary to some assertions, the Church is not immune from criticism from its parishioners (from both regular Church-goers and a mass of periodically practicing followers - whose strength of belief is in the foundational tenets of the 'living faith'). The Church may have been slow to react in the past, possibly in a mistaken belief that the greater good (of serving the best interests of the congregation as a whole) was of higher priority than exposing the Church to ridicule by exposing a relatively small number of 'transgressors'. This was a gross error in judgement, but, as in all large organisations there will invariably be some black sheep - but this does not necessarily reflect endemic failure or corruption. In medicine, and in banking, there have been occasional transgressors and ineptitude, but we do not condemn the overall 'system' in consequence.

Squeers,

Your focus on 'afterlife' is misdirected - for the intention and the reality of the faith is on appropriate and Christian conduct in this life, encompassing virtue, compassion, empathy and understanding. Thought of 'reward' must be, and IS essentially very much secondary. You may offer a child a reward for keeping their room tidy, but to construe this as 'coercion' is exaggeration and grandstanding - unless you wish to interpret it as such.

>"The rub is that democratic capitalism is unsustainable."<

I, and probably many others, would be greatly interested in your view of how 'a perfect world' would operate?

LATO,

I look out the window and marvel at OUR sun, shared by and nurturing all of humanity and all of life. An inclusive and finite Universe. Humankind is not yet capable of properly and adequately addressing its responsibilities and opportunities, but mere hope of change is not enough - we all have to work at it.

""The faith is based around the life and death of a guy who suffered the most extreme criminal punishment of his day ...""

Posted by GrahamY, Sunday, 12 August 2012 11:20:40 AM

The faith is based around a narrative that is asserted to be about a guy - it may be at least half myth-fiction, or more

Saltpetre:

...It is not sensible to imply the infallibility of the RC Church. Nothing and nobody on earth is indispensable.

You say:
<What a strange and ridiculous assertion> (IE: "the RC Church would continue to operate effectively as an institution, without a congregation at all.");

...Not at all! There is evidence to support my charge. The Archdiocese of Boston is one case in point. Over sixty parishes were closed (as a saving), in an attempt to pay-out victims of sexual abuse by priests, which cost the Archdiocese over a hundred million dollars in compensation payments.

...This example of parish contraction could continue successfully, all the way to the Vatican; the beating heart of the RC “institution”. I think Catholics are misguided to believe the parish and its parishioners are of fundamental importance to the survival of the institution: And Geraldine Doogue is waking-up to the reality.

...Church organisations (including the RC Church), have re-prioritised their agendas into the role of NGO’s, servicing primarily the social service needs of the community with nursing homes and schools for example.

...This subtle shift has gone unheeded by parishioners, who believe that the traditional priority of the Church to offer the service of worship, has maintained its priority in the fundamental structure of the church. Unfortunately the imperative of worship (Financially), is evidenced as a lower priority and receives a proportionate and unsuitable response for the beleaguered parishioner.

Thank you Squeers. I felt such a sense of vindication from your first post.

Doogue's effort was such a disappointment. For one who has such a well nourished public position she seems to be saying that it's too hard for me, it's up to others to do something about the lesser aspects of the Catholic church.

What a pity. It seems she doesn't want to do anything to risk her celebrity status. For one who tries so often to sound intellectual and philosophical there is some chance that she is just not what she believes herself to be. There is not much depth in her heart bleeding bits. The ending is so limp. Above all the Pontius Pilate act.

Perhaps she should take a leaf out of Dietrich Bonhoeffer' book. The Third Reich was full of highly cultured people that knew and lived the good life. It was their values which were wanting. Doogue could do well to think that through before her next celebrity appearance on the ABC's endless feel-good dinner parties.

Chek,
thanks for the endorsement of a "troubled listener". It's so easy to be seduced by eloquence, and I too find her wine-sipping high teas curiously vulgar. Doogue should perhaps consider Walter Benjamin's wise words: "There is no document of culture that is not at the same time a document of barbarism".

Saltpetre,
I agree that ethics can be based on cooperation, rather than carrots and sticks, which have signally failed.
I have no concept of a perfect world, buty a good place to start is patent injustice, which u underwrites our justice system.
I'm not unsympathetic, btw, to the fact that we are "meaning seeking creature".

It was pleasing to see the Pope in the news today, and his butler's testimony to the corruption within the Catholic hierarchy

Chek,

"For one who has such a well-nourished position she seems to be saying it's too hard for me, it's up to others to do something about the lesser aspects of the church."

I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion?

She bared some personal anguish that the institutional church had seemingly lost its way, then made the point that Catholicism comprises both its institutional base and its congregation.
She finished by highlighting the fact that "reform" is as much a responsibility of the lay community as it is the institutional church - and to breath new life into Catholicism will entail a partnership between the two.

Squeers' comment that: "It is so easy to be seduced by eloquence..." (while in my experience is more than spot on) doesn't alter the fact that it is eloquence that most effectively transmits a message. Geraldine cares about Catholicism and where it's headed. Whatever one thinks about her as a media personality, it shouldn't preclude her using her eloquence and her standing to rally others of her faith to examine their role in the future of the Catholic tradition.

Poirot,
the Catholic Church has a long and almost exclusively dark history, right up to the present day with the generational shepherding and cover-ups of paedophile priests. During that time it has never been the people's church, in fact it spawned Protestantism and has maintained its rigid hierarchical structure notwithstanding.
So far as I can ascertain, Doogue's article eloquently says nothing. It's full of her usual ebullience over imponderables and doesn't answer her own reflection: "why I'm still a Catholic". And what are we too make of her revolutionary suggestion that it's up to the people? Is she suggesting another Protestant revolution? I don't think so. Maybe she just wants the church neutered, like the British Monarchy; people can then go on attending mass for nostalgia value--for a benevolent institution that never was. Better still. Why not privatise the Catholic Church? Then it would have to reform to keep share holders happy. Or a theme park perhaps; "Catholic World"?
In any such other guise it wouldn't be the Catholic Church, which has never given in to populism. The Catholic Church remains the same corrupt regime it's always been and much of the flock, I suspect, prefer it that way--ridgy didge.

Good one Squeers. You damn Geraldine for her eloquence, so what should we do to you for yours. Particularly as you use yours in such wilfully inaccurate ways. How is communion a "high tea"? The Catholic church's history is "almost exclusively dark" - so what are the non-dark bits? What is "generational shepherding...of paedophile priests"? I like your flights of fancy about what Geraldine might have meant - how about sticking to what she actually said? BTW, in case you haven't noticed the Roman Catholic Church is in private ownership, so "privatisation" would be a redundancy. But hey, let's not let "eloquence" get in the way of facts.

Squeers,

I'm not defending the Catholic church. I'm aware of Catholic and Protestant history, which can't really be summed up accurately within the parameters of a couple of disparaging lines. I'm defending Geraldine Doogue's right to publicly ponder the future direction of her church and to suggest ways forward.

I'm not religious and nor are you. We have no idea what the Catholic faithful derive from their church attendance or their general adherence to the faith. You are presuming that because you judge it's all empty blather and control, that nothing of any internal value could possibly be derived from it.

I'm sure Geraldine would be the first to admit that she doesn't have the definitive solution, or even the certainty that one can be found. She's attempting to open the discussion, which is a refreshing departure from people gushing forth on the woes of the institutional world while not lifting a finger to move in a more positive direction....ridgy didge.

Poroit

I guess I expect a lot more from one who has such a commanding position in the media. She offers no insight or hope for better things to come. It's like the case of highly placed person in Britain not wishing to upset her relationship with the charismatic Hitler.

A little bit of Phillip Adam in her article would have been satisfactory. Values is what defines us as human beings. The Third Reich was not devoid of highly cultured people who knew and lived the privileged life, quite the contrary. It is their values which were wanting. Even then, there was Dietrich Bonhoeffer and numerous other lesser known youths who rose up, albeit surreptitiously,against that barbaric regime. The retribution from speaking up against the Catholic Church today is trivial. What is holding her back? Or is that the best from her glory chest?

In passing, Geraldine Doogue was rather forthright and passionate (and in her sexy prime) in a video encouraging public servants to embrace enterprise bargaining, if I remember correctly, around 1970. No doubt she was paid to do that.

She is a bit of a "siren", dressed up as a public intellectual. She might be able to look forever young. I hope she will grow old gracefully with accelerated maturity on her philosophical, moral and ethical moorings. Her Catholic church will not provide the requisite succour. She has proved that in her article.

The Catholic Church is rotten to the core. Geoffrey Robertson's book makes the case that the current Pope should be hauled in front of an
International Court. Just in case you are laughing, just think of the respected, lauded and publicly celebrated individuals before the law caught up with them - mafia bosses, drug barons, money launderers, tax haven schemers. The list goes on. But I am sure Benedict will not have an odious end, not in his life time. It takes centuries for the sins of one fornicating and corrupt pope to be revealed and accepted.

Chek,

I suspect most of the rancour directed at Geraldine Doogue is attendant more upon the fact that she is an intelligent, attractive, eloquent and successful woman - one who has revealed her apparent bewilderment concerning her church and its implications for her faith.

I'm sure if she'd been a frumpy, dust-covered intellectual of little public note, she would have provided a much smaller target.

My dear Poirot

If she were frumpy etc, she would not have made it.

Because she has made it, made it as a TV journalist in the ABC with the clever use of her God given attributes, I expect a lot more from her.

I don't expect the same from Marilyn Monroe in her Hollywood parlour of make-believe glamour and delusions.

Chek

GrahamY,

More of your nonsense (you haven't got back to me on the last response btw).

I haven't damned Doogue's eloquence, but a ;lack of substance.

I haven't said communions are "high teas". I referred to her "wine-sipping high teas" metaphorically, alluding to Doogue's recent series of interviews for compass, which is what I also took Chek to be alluding to.

The history of the Catholic church, in the world, "is" dark indeed.

By "generational shepherding...of paedophile priests" I was alluding to the way priests were merely moved to another parish when their sexual misconduct caught up with them. Have you been living under a rock? I like double entendre and was using "shepherding" in rugby league vernacular. Sorry if that's too sophisticated for you, but don't you have a degree in English Lit?

I have concentrated on what she has actually said. She hasn't said anything tangible!

My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of privatisation was that the church be floated on the share market.

Get your facts straight, mate.

Poirot,
the history of the institution can be summed up in a few disparaging sentences. I've said nothing about theology, however, and I don't deny it has a rich history of devout and sublime adherents.

Of course I don't know individuals' reasons, but I married into a Catholic family and know many, and they are without exception merely institutionalised.

"You are presuming that because you judge it's all empty blather and control, that nothing of any internal value could possibly be derived from it".

I have said and am presuming no such thing. Neither am I motivated by misogyny!

Well, I haven't read most of the foregoing comments...

... but I just wanted to say, what a wonderfully well-written and brutally honest piece of self-inquiry this is. I very much like the characterisation of human beings as "meaning-seeking animals", and this piece is a very good illustration of the profound thoughtfulness and soul-searching that we are capable of in pursuit of this objective. It's the sort of thinking that could well galvanise a revolution in the way the institutional church is run.

It also advances the idea that meaning can be what you make of it from your experiences, whether these accommodate the concept of a God or not.

And I suppose in this vein what I can say is that for me, the “rich armoury of belief, consolation, glimpse of the divine, the whole notion of commitments, of artistry, of abundant life” is eminently possible to achieve in the secular world, just as much as it is for Geraldine in the spiritual. This is why I’m not a Catholic, but equally I can say that it is only my life experience that has led me to this, and that I find it perfectly acceptable that others’ might be different.

So in that sense, I guess that means nothing’s changed! But many thanks for your thoughts Geraldine. As someone who has met and interviewed so many people from so many walks of life, your faith in humanity is quite inspirational.

Diver Dan
"...It is difficult to argue that the top down rule of the RC Church is a prime reason in the development of entrenched corruption, and their unwillingness to deal with the obvious anomalies, in particular the covering-up of paedophilia. ... I have great respect for the honest folk of the RC Church; but not a lot for the entrenched culture of its hierarchy, when such of them smother corruption."

The teachings of the Catholic Church that I referred to, apply to all its members including the hierarchy. Implemented administrative policy calls for accusations of sexual misbehaviour against members of the hierarchy to be referred to the police.

If you have evidence that there is sexual misbehaviour or corruption that has not been reported to the police, then you should inform the police. Otherwise, the honourable thing to do is to retract your claim that corruption is entrenched in the hierarchy.

Squeers,

Okay, you believe that the history of the institutional church can be summed up in a few disparaging sentences, and I don't. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The crux of Geraldine Doogue's relatively brief article was why she was still committed to her faith. You think that she neglected to address the article's title, although she didn't stint on that subject when she wrote, amongst other things:

"...The church frames my identity, as basic as that. It's the source of consolation without peer.....It has been one of the most rewarding avenues of growth and stimulation of any in my life...I brings great capacity for rapture, beauty, sensuality, joy...So I treasure the sheer tradition of faith. I seek it out. It helps me fulfill the natural human urge to make meaning....", etc.

Why the withering commentary when she was merely offering her take on the future of the Catholic tradition? And who in our society isn't "institutionalised"? Yes, I know we all pretend to be free and the master of our own destinies, but most are merely in the thrall of the many institutions that collectively serve to direct their material lives.

Geraldine spoke of aspects of her faith that bestow "meaning" to her. She thinks they are worth preserving for future generations. I believe that emanates from a generosity of spirit derived from her faith.

It's something to praise, not to censure.

"

Diver Dan
"...Quite simply, the Roman Catholic Church is, (and again) quite obviously, a defective model of Christianity!"

You seem unaware that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that has continuous links back to Jesus Christ. That is, it is not a model of Christianity -- it is the real thing.

Raycom,

You seem to ignore the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches who also have continuous links back to Jesus Christ.

Raycom:

...Human genetics stretch back further than Christ, a fact which makes nobody perfect! That should “twig” you to the problem of a blind faith in trusting "lineage" for a successful model of Christianity, (as Roman Catholics do)! What is your point?

Um what's this post I'm supposed to be getting back to Squeers? If you can't use language accurately don't blame me when I point out it doesn't mean anything. BTW, it wasn't the use of the word shepherding that I was querying, but "generational". Now you have "clarified" your use of the word shepherding as referring to Aussie Rules I am even more confused. It's not apparent from the context that there was any reference to Rules, and shepherding does have an ordinary meaning. Maybe best you try and speak clearly instead of cleverly, or down.

Chek,

You seem to have a terrible opinion of the Catholic Church:

From your post of 9.26am on August 15th: >"The Catholic Church is rotten to the core."<

FYI: My late wife received a heart transplant completely free of charge from St Vincent's Public Hospital, Darlinghurst, Sydney, the home base at the time of the renowned heart surgeon the late Dr. Victor Chang. This surgery gave her an extra five years of reasonable quality of life. A gift to her, to me, and to all of her family and friends. At the time of her surgery we also met, in the accommodation provided free by the hospital, recipients of heart, heart-lung and lung transplants. Wonderful people, all given a new lease of life.

My late wife was C of E - and denomination never entered consideration for any of these fortunate recipients, or any others receiving treatment.

The hospital is administered by an order of Nuns of the Catholic Church, and, as well as providing a full range of services free to the public, including extensive services to drug users (or abusers) from the nearby Kings Cross area, also maintains an extensive research and development facility.

This hospital is both cutting-edge, and extraordinarily benevolent. Is this an example of your "rotten to the core"?

I am sure many others will have had similar experience in so many wonderful institutions established by the Catholic Church - Mater Hospitals, St Joseph's schools, nursing homes, charities.

Most of us seek wisdom and guidance in our lives, from great writers, historians, philosophers and some public figures. You mention Pope Benedict xvi, and possibly his manner, demeanor and speech is not the most one would seek in such position. But I think back on His Holiness Pope John Paul ll, a truly remarkable, humble and inspirational man.

Through our variety of life experience and seeking of wisdom, we need take care not to make rash judgements. Christ provided an example. We can do far worse than trying to learn from that example. Humility and an acceptance of imperfection is a good place to start.

Poirot,
I have long admired Geraldine Doogue, but lately have been a "troubled listener". Her article invites comments, but apparently one is not allowed to be critical. I stand by everything I've said. You are entitled to your opinions but I reject your takes on mine

GrahamY,
if I've talked "down" it's only to reciprocate the contempt in your own manner of address.

The word "shepherd" also means to protect and my meaning wasn't arcane. The Catholic and other churches have shepherded and protected its sexual predators, incongruously neglecting the sheep, for generations.

Saltpetre,
the catholic church "is" rotten to the core: http://tinyurl.com/848ym9a

Squeers,

Fair enough.
You were fairly robust in your critique, and I argued an opposing view. Apologies if you feel I misrepresented your position, but after all,
the title of the article was "Why I'm still a Catholic" - not "Why You Should Become a Catholic".

Saltpetre

On rash judgements, I agree, totally.

The RC church has done a lot of good, for a good number of people, of course. The balance sheet though could be traumatic to read. Just like what the communist regime has done in lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty in China. All authoritarian regimes that manage to brook no criticism are capable of gigantic outcomes, one form or another.

If you happened to have received some impulsive charity from Kerry Packer after a personal tragedy, don't forget that he was one who paid less tax in the dollar than an office cleaner. The individual gain must be weighed against the dispenser who sucks blood out of the common-good bank.

An old tree was taken out of a neighbour's yard across the road last month. It had provided shade from the western sun for the adjourning property. It was a haven for birds and possums. But the white ants had got to its core. All the same it was far from terminal. Now I have a view to the mountains to the north, and the black sooty dust in my entrance is gone. The leaves of that tree were full of some black mould which I did not detect until the branches were being fed into tree cutter's mulcher.

Some old trees are rotten, no matter how attractive they might look.

Squeers:

...And to sum it all up…this question from a poster at your link:

Question:

… In which of the following do you find Catholic priests widely practising all of: money laundering, mafia involvement, murder, corruption and paedophilia?

1. Germany.

2. Sicily.

3. Prisons.

4. The Vatican.

Answer: The Vatican.

(Germany only has widespread child abuse in the Catholic Church, Sicily is not known for widespread paedophilia and prisons do not yet harbor many Catholic priests.)

Thank you, Chek, for your very nice analogy. I take your point. Some problems are invasive and possibly near-terminal, perhaps from internal infestation, or from viral or fungal infection, and possibly allowed to flourish through misdiagnosis, inappropriate treatment or neglect. To amputate the non-salvageable and effect repair to save a structure providing succor and harbour in abundant diversity, or to tear down and destroy for want of more diligent effort?

A mighty tree with branches spanning continents has a limited infestation at its head, weevil-ling and weakening the crown, but the tree has strong roots, deep-seated in what many consider nutrient-rich soil. A harbour of hope, aid, and inspiration towards what may be possible for a brighter future for human society. Some may only view a vast shadow, or gnarled and misshapen limbs, neglecting the shade and protection afforded to the weak and struggling, disregarding the fruit falling freely for any to gather, scoffing at the timeless messages carved deep into its bark and embodied in the ethics and justice we so prize. Some can only covert the nutrients it must absorb to produce its abundant fruit, and others only focus on the warts and bruises attesting to its struggle to rid itself of corrosive and destructive elements detracting from its pursuit of exemplary conduct and of illumination of what may be possible if we are able to work together in harmony and goodwill.

Introspection and review are at hand, and a struggle to address contemporary pressures and values in what amounts to a very troubled world. Will you condemn an orchard on account of some spoiled fruit?

We may hasten to judge and regret at leisure, but the rejection of virtuous endeavours because of a broken spoke or two can only leave us unclad in a harsh and uncaring winter of terrible discontent.

Saltpetre
I'm glad your wife received a new heart at St Vincents, but its no surprise she wasn't discriminated against on the basis of her religion: it would have been illegal. It is a public hospital, so no surprise either that there was no charge.

I happened across another article by Geraldine Doogue from 2010 on the subject of institutional reform within the Catholic church. Although this article is little more expansive, the later article seems to reprise the theme. She appears frustrated that, even in her position, she is unable to do more than broadcast lay community disaffection to bishops in the hope they will move to refresh the church.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/03/2971914.htm

(judging by Squeers' link, the Vatican could do with a good dose of something)

Saltpetre:

...You’d no doubt be aware of the following:

“ He made a whip from small ropes and threw everyone with their sheep and cattle out of the temple courtyard. He dumped the moneychangers' coins and knocked over their tables”.

...This quote of course, is a condemnation of the willingness of the Jews to allow the encroachment of worldly matters to interfere in the worship of God! ... Sound familiar?

...The Roman Catholic Church can stand roundly condemned for leading the flock AWAY from God…Be honest with yourself at the least! … A point Geraldine Doogue plainly makes in this article!

Here is a great article by Greg Craven in The Australian asking why it appears to be OK to be offensive towards the Catholic Church in certain circles - the sort of offensiveness we've seen from some of the contributors on this thread http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/religious-reporting-has-really-gone-to-the-dogs/story-e6frgd0x-1226453607419.

He is presumably ignorant of this thread, but it even has a reference to a "shepherd" in it.

GrahamY,

I reject the imputation I've been "offensive" about the Catholic church, or at least that I've been unjustifiably so. If some people find the truth offensive then so be it!

Reject all you like, but your "Shepherding" claim carries the imputation that it is part of the practice of the Catholic Church to not just condone but to encourage paedophilia, and that it institutionally protects paedophiles through its practices. That's pretty inaccurate and pretty offensive.

Graham,

To be fair, it's not so much an imputation of overtly "encouraging" paedophilia, more that there is more value to the Catholic church in protecting the perpetrators. The upshot is that the church's reputation has, in the past, been placed well ahead of any wrongs committed. "Shepherding" (in football parlance) those accused into new parishes without addressing the accusations, tacitly condones the crimes.

Is it possible or helpful to gain some perspective, to weigh the pro's and con's and ponder options and alternatives, or is it only possible to criticize - because we can?

Who or what in the world today is not subject to criticism, not without blemish, vested interest or prejudice? (Maybe His Holiness the Dalai Lama.) But when or how shall the lion finally lay down with the lamb?

Diver Dan, good point, but we live in a Capitalist world, and have done for a long time, so it is understandable that any organisation, religious or otherwise, would have to participate in this setting to have any chance of success. The principal difference, in the Church context, may be motive and intent, vision and purpose.

Is the vision of the Church, originating in the teachings and example of Jesus, to dominate and hold subservient, or to elevate and guide towards peace, harmony and virtue?

Squeers has pointed us to some links which make accusations of some questionable or possibly criminal financial activities within the upper echelons of the Church. Potentially criminal misdealing cannot be justified, irrespective of any virtuous intent, but perhaps some consideration may be given to the use being made of any acquired funds? Have Hank Paulson and his cohorts been brought to justice for their part in bringing the world's most affluent nation virtually to its knees and dragging so many others down with it? And, out of pure self-interest.

Jesus tried to provide a vision, and the Christian Church has endeavoured to foster that vision (but not always through the best means). Can that vision not still have meaning and relevance, or is there a better vision and a better means of its attainment? Or, will we simply wait for the likes of Al Shabaab to take up farming and benevolent endeavours, for potentates to relinquish all their worldly possessions and retire to solitary contemplation, for nations to lay down their arms and take up Buddhism or New World Ethics?

We may yearn for means, opportunity and vision, but we still need guidance.

Well it's a fine point of semantics, GrahamY (you're slow but catching on), and not really what the article or my responses have been about, but yes ok, I'll go with that. It's certainly not encouragement in terms of advocacy, but an institutional policy, for generations, of moving offending priests on to fresh pasture, when they offend, can hardly be called "disencouragement".

GY:

...Good honest loyal genuine and dedicated folk, the Parishioners of the RC Church, are the losers who have a need to be made “Big”. The Parishioners of the RC Church are now the “Democratic Underground” in a corrupt institution; what a farce!

...Geraldine Doogue is one very important “face” of this underground movement of Parishioners, who are crying-out for justice and systemic change: But does it get any better for trying; apparently not; the binding glue of credibility strains further, pressured by news of the unravelling scandal of money laundering at the Vatican Bank, what is the answer?

...Parishioners are obviously exhausted, bewildered and frustrated dealing with the embarrassing fallout from entrenched corruption and immorality. The current condition of the RC Church has become indefensible on too many grounds!