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.