As with the rest of mainstream society, the church reflects this and is a dysfunctional family, but as Father Kennedy said, “You don’t just walk away because it is dysfunctional” – one has to admire him for this.

A rather hypocritical letter to Peter Kennedy from the ‘Most Rev' John A Bathersby has this in its content,
“…Peter, making these decisions gives me no satisfaction whatsoever. The separation of Christians is contrary to all that Christ prayed for. Nor does such division promote the Kingdom of God. You have had ample time to make a considered decision. Please God the division that exists at the present time will be healed in the future, probably not in my time…. In this matter I pray also that Mary the mother of Jesus will be our inspiration and guide as we seek her prayerful support for the healing of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, and St Mary’s Parish.

Sincerely in Christ
Most Rev John A Bathersby DD
ARCHBISHOP OF BRISBANE”

His ousting could be delayed indefinitely as the case might be determined in Rome, before an ultimate decision by the Pope, however Kennedy, although wishing to remain a Catholic, said he didn’t have faith in the Pope. Strictly speaking, I guess that ‘non-belief’ ousts him anyway.

"It's not we who are in schism with the Catholic Church, The Catholic Church is not in sync with its own people." – Father Kennedy

I have been in Father Kennedy's church at a dinner for refugees. Although I am not a Catholic I felt a fellowship with the people there and appreciated very much what Father Kennedy had done in giving refugees the support that Ruddock and Howard didn't give them. He has given the disinherited and downtrodden support in other instances. I don't believe that Archbishop Bathersby is the villain in this case. I think he is a nice man without a great deal of courage who is pushed by the Vatican and Opus Dei to get rid of Father Kennedy.

Father Kennedy is a most decent man who is in the spirit of John XXIII. Unfortunately there is no room in the current Catholic Church for such men.

From by favourite Spiritual "philosopher"---re the inherent totalitarian nature of the said "orthodox-religion".

"The Monotheistic "creationist-religion" is an exclusively exoteric institution which is intent upon controlling and managing the entire human world and even the conditionally arising universe itself.

The "sacred power" that such "religion" claims it brings (or would extend) into the human world is, it says, the "Creator-God" of the universe--whereas, in fact, the power that such "religion" actually exercises (or would everywhere exercise) is that of of the humanly-governed political, social, economic, cultural, and altogether, merely exoteric INSTITUTIONALIZATIO of the totality of humankind.

The institutionalizing-power that such "religion exercises (or would everywhere exercise, if allowed to function at will and unimpeded) is of an inherently intolerant nature---because it is self-possessed by a reductionist, and tribalistic, and exclusively exoteric mentality, that cannot accept any non-"orthodox", extra-tribal (or extra-instutional) non-monotheistic, or, otherwise, esoteric exceptions to its "Rule".

One of the key characteristics that such "religion" has is the persistent will to dominate and assimilate ALL other traditions and cultures---while otherw be either influenced or assimilated."

Hence "god's" Rottweiler.

If step 1 is to abandon faith in the Pope, then surely step 2 is to abandon faith in God. Let Father Kennedy turn the church into a social club and invite Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems to come and join in the guitar sing-along and the marshmallow campfires.

Until he is prepared to do this, however, he remains a card-carrying officer of a church based on the tenet of central authority, and is obliged to follow the rules.

The main reason Catholicism has survived in its current form is because it will not tolerate dissent. Presumably Father Kennedy knew this when he joined up. If he doesn't like it, he knows where the door is.

I don't know that there is anything wrong with the Church ousting Kennedy's congregation. Quite simply, it is not a Catholic community. It doesn't follow Catholic rules and it picks and chooses which Catholic beliefs it will follow. Bathersby hasn't shut down the congregation - he has simply noted that, because the St. Mary's congregation don't want to play by the Church's rules, the Church will stop funding them and will also take back its building.

As for the Church's "only hope for survival" being the ordination of women, etc, we see these things through a curiously secular Australian perspective. Stroll past St. Peter's on a Wednesday morning and tell me that the Church is dying; visit one of the many devoutly Catholic countries in the world and tell me the Church is dying. Many other denominations have brought in all or some of these modernisations and still the Catholic Church is the biggest denomination. I'm not sure that changing the entire structure of the Church to inspire Australians back into the fold is the way of the future.

if the catholic church wants to change their structure, in order to survive, that's their business. if the catholic church doesn't want to change their structure, in order to remain a narrow-minded and divisive and sex-obsessed cult, that's still their business. but let's see this outdated barbarism for what it is. to hell with them.

Otokonoko, The outside world assumes that France is a devout Catholic country, but one only has to look at all the churches in France that are falling into disrepair because they have been abandoned by the French people.
Here in Australia, one only has to talk with people who have been through the Catholic education system to realise the low regard in which many hold the Catholic church. Most are still only adherents because of the fear of retribution which has been indoctrinated into them and which they are unable to cast off. They dwell too much on ( King James Bible)Deuteronomy 6:15 "For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you. Lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth." and not enough on John 3.16 "For God so loved the world... " which is what the Christian church should be about.
The latter is obviously what Kennedy and his cohorts are about, but the former is the domain of Benedict and the curia.

David

What is happening at St Mary’s brings home the question of what defines Church in the Catholic tradition. For some ‘Church’ may well be going to Mass once a week and living life as much as possible according to the ‘laws’ of Rome. These are generally good people who care for others and pray for all who suffer in the world. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. For others, however, this brings little satisfaction. They long for more – for a sense of belonging, for a sense of living life to the full according to the ways of Jesus. As such, they wish to act out their love and not just show sympathy for the marginalised but physically go out and be with the ‘poor’. I am not speaking about preaching here. I am alerting to the fact that the community of St Mary’s does a tremendous amount of outreach work to the needy in the streets of Brisbane. The commitment and generosity of these people is commendable. Theirs is a diverse community who stand with and among all kinds of people. Their sense of social justice is so strong that they are willing to defy the ‘laws’ of their church so as to be able to follow the ‘laws’ of their hearts. As with anyone belonging to a particular family it is painful to go against the beliefs that have been upheld for generations, but when one truly believes in the core of one’s being that something is ‘just not right’, it is the love and concern for that same family that gives one the courage to speak out. Ideally, at the end of the day all parties will listen with an open heart and be open to change. I would love to belong to a caring community as St Mary’s where the emphasis is on equality – particularly where women are concerned. Once I lived close enough to Brisbane to visit St Mary’s from time to time. Each time I was in awe of the powerful presence of a welcoming spirit.

While the Catholic Church is entitled to impose its rules on its members, this whole affair shows how removed the church is from any meaningful form of Christianity. Add to that the CC's perpetual commission of two of Pope Benedict's new sins (not causing poverty and not degrading the environment), and you appear to have a godless, authoritarian organisation.

What B17 and that unhappy little cowering coward,bathersby, are tantamount in saying is that the Ecumenical Commission under that sainted pope,John 23rd was all wrong and had made a dreadful mistake!!

Listen up all you guys.I have since the sacking spoken to 5 RC priests who all say that Kennedy was quite correct in the spirit of Ecumenism.The Pope and Bishops are irrelevant in this century and history will bear testimony to this.

socratease

I wasn't really thinking of France. Why are so many priests in Australia from the Philippines? What about South and Central America? The Catholic Church still has an enormous grip on many parts of the world. I think, perhaps, that it is not fighting for survival but, instead, shifting its centre of gravity.

Todays catholic church continues to live in many centuries past, when they had control of the "flock". They still continue this control of fear, if any member of the "flock" attempts to divert from the CC rules.
In modern terms the CC has moved into the status of a cult, these are the rules, and if you do not follow them you are out.
The holy spirit must be asking him/herself, who put this current lot in charge!

How sad it is that a good, decent, priest, who
can fill his church to capacity with worshippers
is being 'expelled' and his church closed down
at a time when other Catholic churches are empty,
and there is a great shortage of priests in Australia.

This is an example of what was seen happening in the
Soviet Union where the Government shut down churches
because they preached disagreement with their policy
and they converted the churches to museums, store-rooms,
and factories.

Is this what the Head of the Catholic Church in Australia
really condones?

At this rate many more Churches will inevitably be closed,
people will continue to leave in droves. Because a religion
which expects people to march in identical step and to chant
a univocal doctrine ceases to draw people in.

There was another priest, Father James Kavanaugh, who wrote
back in 1967:

"We need an evaluation of what is Christian, and what is simply
tired and imperious tradition. The present structure of the
Church is not an adequate representation of the Christ of
Gospel and history..."

We need priests like Father Kennedy who asks for " honest
dialogue, an open hierarchy, and a Church which does not have
all the answers or expects all its members to walk in the
wooden cadences of frozen categories."

1967 - 2009 - Nothing has changed.
Sad indeed - and a great loss for all!

Speaking as a slightly-lapsed Catholic, I wonder at the mood here.
If you're a Catholic, then you accept as a Tenet of Faith the Primacy and Infallibility of the Papacy in matters of the Faith, how can there be any question of error here?
The priests concerned believe they know better than the Pope?
Do you?
If you're a Christian, that's one thing, and you can find you're way where-ever you wish, and I bless you for you're Faith, but if you claim to be Catholic, then the matter is closed, the authority of Rome has spoken, and that is the end of it.

Otokonoko, I agree with your point that the CC has an enormous grip on the people in the countries which you quote. It is also coincidental that these are amongst some of the poorer countries of the world, certainly in Christendom. One wonders "Why is it so". The Vatican does nothing to use its undoubted riches to help the poor or the needy, it just goes about the business of keeping the hierarchy in the style to which they have become accustomed.

And we thought the Medici were a pack of bastards.

Speaking of the Medici there are those who miss them and days past

Miniver Cheevy

Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.

Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would send him dancing.

Miniver sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.

Miniver mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.

Miniver loved the Medici,
Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.

Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing:
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.

Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.

Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.

-- Edwin Arlington Robinson

As far as I can understand it, Father Kennedy was not reprimanded for his views or for doing charitable work among the needy, oppressed, marginalised etc., but for conducting the celebration of the Eucharist (the mass) - which is a ceremony with its rules like any other ceremony - in a form that does not comply with the rules that the Church has the right to set in order to protect its identity (and unity, at least in the formal, liturgical, sense). An identity that other Christians might or might not acknowledge or even approve of (it should be irrelevant for those who are not Christians).

As for “Fr Kennedy’s success in attracting a congregation” the Archbishop would certainly not object to Father Kennedy “attracting a congregation” by e.g. serving soup to the homeless and needy, but he would certainly object if the priest was doing it during the mass.

>> The liturgy ... including women preaching. They also ... give out communion to all and sundry. <<

Part of these rules - for better or worse - is that neither laymen nor laywomen are supposed to preach during the mass. Of course, they are encouraged to give lectures at various Church organised occasions, and there are many Catholic women, including professional theologians, who do that, often on controversial topics.

Another “rule” is the Catholic understanding of (holy) communion, which other Christians might or might not share (again something that should not be of interest to non-Christians). Most universities would object if asked to “give out degrees to all and sundry” irrespective of the rules it set, rules that outsiders might or might not like.

Nevertheless, the crisis, as to membership numbers, is real. However, it is not so much a crisis of the Catholic Church as that of organised, i.e. traditional, Christianity - Catholic or Protestant - in the West. Not only numbers of secular humanists (atheists) but also those of Evangelicals, often of the most fundamentalist orientation and emotional ways of expressing their faith, thrive on this.

One issue that I have never heard the media mention about Fr Kennedy, and St Mary's activities, is that they are intensely anti-war. St Mary's has been openly critical of Australia's role in the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the Australian government's failure to condemn Israel's persecution of, and successive military assaults on, the Palestinian people.

In such a pro-war society as Australia, the championing of peace and the criticism of war are quite possibly greater 'sins' to the Australian arm of the Catholic Church and the conservative Australian establishment than accepting gays into the flock, promoting the ordination of women or installing statues of Bhudda in the garden.

On this basis, I wonder if Dr Bathesby's punitive actions are a reflection of the Australian Church hierarchy as much as those of the Vatican.

from bathersby's letter to Kennedy from 22 august:

"A Bhuddist statue in a Catholic Church or sanctuary just does not make sense ... However the issue of the statue is only one of improper practice. St. Mary's seems to be an authority to itself. Despite the good that it does, it places itself outside the practice of the Catholic church"

"1. The matter of faith - ... the placing of a Bhuddist statue in a Christian church is extremely confusing"

"2. The matter of liturgy – ... ad hoc decisions ..."

"3. The matter of governance – ... Father Terry Fitzpatrick has never been appointed to St. Mary's ... the refusal to acknowledge any difference between ordained and non-ordained membership"

"4. The matter of authority – The Roman Catholic church has a certain structure which needs to be respected ... my authority is scarcely recognized ... there is no other way of finding Jesus except in the Church ..."

And Bathersby quotes some letter from St. Mary's:

<it is the institutional Church in the modern world, and not St. Mary's, which is out of step with what Jesus taught and the example he set>

Bathersby continues:

"It is precisely here that the problem lies. St. Mary's claims an authority and authenticity that belongs only to the entire Catholic church".

Well. The Catholic church has "authority" over itself, and that's it. It has no moral authority, and no religious authority. They don't own jesus.

And "authenticity"? same thing. yes, the Catholic church is authentically itself: a rule-bound collection of sex-obsessed cultist thugs.

yes, they have every right to police their particular club of outdated, narrow-minded twaddle. so what?

George,
Thomas Hobbes perhaps describes your view on being Catholic quite well. He wrote skeptically on the ‘mysteries of religion’, “… as with wholesome pills for the sick; which swallowed whole, have the virtue to cure; but chewed, are for the most part, cast up again without effect." Today, many people are quite unable to swallow the 'pill' of Roman magisterium, with its Papal infallibility, celibacy doctrine etc. – understandably, most if not all outside of the RC faith will choke on such a pill. Internal dissent is also quite clear - a survey of Catholic opinion on Human Vitae showed eight out of ten Catholics disagreeing with the statement that "using artificial means of birth control is wrong."

I guess the ideological quarrels about how Catholicism should institutionalize itself are becoming extremely irrelevant to such people as those tended to by Father Kennedy – and certainly mere “twaddle” to bushbasher and others. BB makes a point though, Catholics nor anyone else don’t ‘own’ Jesus – ‘ownership’ is generally relegated to something quite iconic and empty for those in search of meaning or significance.

For the ultraconservative RC’s, Vatican II was a fundamental mistake that needs to be reversed at least back to Vatican I, if not Trent. The underlying theme of the radicals is antiauthoritarianism - a democratic church would effect needed change. The right fringe creates its own pope - the left fringe replaces a pope with a vote. I don’t think either has the answer…

SJF,
Your comments are perhaps an accurate reflection of a doctrinal stance within medieval Christianity (Augustine, Aquinas etc.) – but Papal infallibility has a caveat, Ratzinger calls it a “development in doctrine.” John Paul, in 1999, said the death penalty is “both cruel and unnecessary.” Human life must not be taken away “even in case of someone who has done great evil.” This approach was evident in RC officialdom to the Iraq war – “…top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a "crime against peace." (FoxNews,2003)

relda,
thank you for your interesting post. Since I do not remember having presented my "view of being Catholic" I must assume that this is your view which, I have to admit, unfortunately reflects how some Catholics often see themselves. Except that I did not understand the relevance of Papal fallibility, celibacy and Humanae Vitae to the case of Fr. Kennedy but that is probably because I know about this case only what was written in the article.

Yes, Catholics differ from other Christians in that they believe that Jesus "commissioned" Peter to found and lead a particular Church, and that the Popes have been Peter's successors. This - rightly or wrongly - is an essential part of Catholic identity - not something that would be an indivisible part of Christian identity - and I would not want to defend it on theological or historical grounds. Nevertheless, I agree that the Archbishop should not have written that "there is no other way of finding Jesus except in the Catholic Church" because it not only smacks of pre-Vatican II supremacism, but is also irrelevant to this case since Father Kennedy's disloyalty apparently concerned only liturgical insubordination.

I agree that the internal tension between the two extremes of Catholicism - conservative as in your Hobbes quote, and outright rebellion leading to complete loss of identity - is irrelevant to outsiders or those who seek in the Church only comfort, be it material (charity) or psychological (spiritual). For instance in Germany, as you know, there are two established Christian Churches represented in the population by roughly equal numbers. Much of what the impatient reformers or radicals request from the Catholic Church has already been met in the Lutheran Church a while ago. Nevertheless, both the Churches are loosing membership in about equal rates to secular humanists (atheists) and emotional-fundamentalist Evangelicals that I mentioned in my previous post. So the Catholic dilemma is not as simple as outsiders, as well as insiders on both ends of the “being Catholic” spectrum, would want to see it.

I read stories like this and am thankful to be an atheist.

The Christian faith could do worse than embrace the idea of a People's Church that allowed parishioners to find the 'light of God' (similar to the Quakers) in the fellowship of others.

No judgements, no creed, no obsessive doctrines/rituals, no argument about which texts are genuine, whose version of God is genuine and a Church that encourages parishioners to speak should the spirit move them. How many Gods and sons of Gods are manifested within Christianity? To an atheist the lack of homogeneity within Christianity (or Islam, Bhuddism etal) is not a good nor unifying force. But I guess we do not live in a perfect world!

Surely these issues would only be of interest to man than to any God or supernatural being (if one such exalted being were to exist).

Pelican; as an atheist, you should be aware that Buddhism is precisely that- atheist!.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to expect Buddhists to show homogeneity with any religion.
This is because Buddhism is not a religion - it is a lifestyle built on philosophy, psychology and spirituality.
Buddhists do not accept any divine "being", but follow Buddha's teaching that every individual is answerable only to him or her self- that one is singularly responsible for the effect of one's words, thoughts and actions (karma).
The attendance of Buddhists at St.Mary's and the placing of Buddha statues there could be what worries the right wing of the Catholic Church; the idea of an individual taking total responsibility for moral behaviour, not having to cower in the face of doctrinal "authority".

Just to clear up my own position here:

I have absolutely nothing against what Kennedy is doing. His community is building bridges and helping the community in extraordinary ways. The only issue is that it is not Catholic. Note, though, that helping the community is not the "uncatholic" activity I'm referring to. Despite claims to the contrary in earlier posts, the Catholic Church does contribute to the community in a huge way, both locally and internationally. Rosies, St Vinnies, Caritas and many other benevolent organisations are the products of Catholic work. And Kennedy's work is invaluable. Back in my high school days, we went on an excursion to Saint Mary's and what we saw was a very strong, very noble community that was somewhat unorthodox. They were very impressive then.

The issue is that he has strayed from the Catholic way of doing things. This is neither good nor bad - it works for his community and certainly he should be applauded for that. But if he doesn't want to play by Catholic rules, then the Catholic Church shouldn't be expected to continue to pay for his upkeep. He has denounced the Pope as a "tyrant" which is decidedly uncatholic - my question is, how can he continue to be a leader in a Church he is so set on undermining? Perhaps, before he loses any credibility or wears his parishioners down, he should accept that his congregation lies outside the bounds of the Catholic Church and continue doing his work elsewhere.

Before you go and holler at me about the word "credibility", by the way, take a look at the man's public outbursts. Even he has retracted the label of "scab" that he cast upon the Church-appointed administrator. He said he looked the word up in the dictionary and discovered that the man was, after all, not a scab. Interesting.

Ponder
Being an atheist does not mean I know anymore about Buddhism than a non-atheist. I am no expert on Buddhism, although I like aspects of some of its teachings gleaned from basic reading.

I was more talking about homogeneity within the religions/belief systems not arguing that all religions merge ie. intra-faith rather than inter-faith. That would be too much to hope for. :)

Otokonoko
I do get your point. Basically if you join a club one assumes you accepts it's rules, doctrines, philosophies and rituals. If you don't like it you don't join or you invite debate and discussion within the Church hierarchy.

The issue of a modern day reformation begs the question: Why? Surely this battle has already been won by Martin Luther and consolidated in the Enlightenment.

The Church has always rooted out, often by violent means, what it terms to be "heretics" and father Kennedy is a modern day example (except he may be excommunicated, not burnt at the stake).

The point is we should stop worrying about weather or not the Church will reform and start opposing its influence in Secular society especially in regards to issues such as gay rights and birth control.

The brouhaha caused by maverick Priest Father Kennedy is nothing new. Parishes all over Aust are fraught with dissident priest and congregations who are at loggerheds with the Establishment, the Papacy and the Vatican in Rome. Revisionist, heretics and liturical misfits have been trying for centuries to change the status quo - making Oz non-subservient to the CC in Rome,making up their own brand of rules and regulations,and enticing the parish to join in their unorthodox behaviours. Our very own Mary MacKillop renounced her sisterhood to start her own, thereby inviting excommunication by Papal decree. Like Kennedy she was a maverick. Definitly a non-conformist. Much has been written about clans, sects, cults and secret cabals - David Koresh's, Charlie Manson, Maharishi Yoga, Hare Krishna, LittlePebble, Jonestown etc.

The 71 year old pariah has bucked the system for nigh on five decades. Suffering mid life crisis, he has a history of civil diobedience which if he was not a man-of-the-cloth, would have been jailed, fined and criminally recorded. By his own definition his 45 years in the ministry has been one of continual rebuttal of diocese orthodoxy and bishopric authority. Moreover,his constant clashes with " totalitarian church authorites,accusing Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI of being tyrants.

Priest take the vowels of charity and obedience ? Obedience to the Megisterium of the Church and it's visible leader the Pope. Flagrant disobedience becomes schimatic when he disregards the authority of his bishop. Clearly, the Bishop is in the Church, and the church is in the bishop, and quote: " he who is not with the Bishop is not in the church ".

Schism ( Greek " shisma ", rent,division ) in theology and canon law. Described as the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity. Catholics have an obligation which binds them to the social organisation of the church, and makes them members of the mystical body of the Catholic Church.

Anyone becomes schismatic who rebels against the legitimate authority of the Church. Those who desire to remain in the church, without going so far as the rejection of the

Church Authority as a whole, is guilty of the crime of apostasy. This applies to the parish of St Mary's, and every other parish.

Schism and heresy - rebellion against the Devinely constituted Hierarchy. Denial of Papal primacy. Excommunication is the de rigueur. Ipso faco. QID.

The honourable priest should fall on his sword. Taking out an injunction in Court confuses the issue and purloining church funds to a protracted Supreme Court battle is disingenuous. Would his parishioners stick by him hiring a QC Barrister or two ?

This self serving spectacle is harming the Church and religion at hoc. It does injustice to all Christian Communities, especially when Oz has ecome so divisive and xenophobic since 9/11. Muslims, Hindus and others are at pains to witness Christianiy washing it's dirty linen in public. The stolen generation debacle,the priesthood paedophilia saga, the Word Youth Day kafuffle, the sordid embezzlement of church funds in parishes, and Vatican corrupt Swiss Bank accounts, Madoff's scandal, etc.

In the final analysis, Pope Benedict XVI's four year reign has not endeared him to the faithful. Alienating himself from the larger part of the CC and Christainity. He is oblivious to the real world, only focused on the Vatican world. His latest gaffe welcoming 4 Bishops, members of a sect opposed to the 2nd Vatican Council 1961, who were ignominously excommunicated by Pope John Paul II,1988. All members of St Pius Society founded 1970 by French Arcbishop Marcel Lefebvre who opposed reforms, and for taking part in unsanctioned ceremonies. UK born Bishop Williamson - denying 6 million Jews perished in Nazi gas chambers, and debunking the Holocaust.

In 2007, he approved Latin Masses hitherto banned by his prdecessor. He angered Muslims by alleging Islam brought things " evil and inhuman " into the world. Almost mimickng Bush's " axis of evil syndrome ". In the dying days of WWII, he served with the Hitler(Jugan) Youth who were responsible for some horrific atrocities to the civilian German population.

Jacinta,

While you are correct in noting that Pope Bennie was a member of the Hitler Youth, I think the inclusion of this in your post is a bit misleading. Membership at the time was mandatory, and he did hold out for some time before joining. He also failed to attend meetings and activities. As such, I doubt that he committed any atrocities against the German people, as could be inferred from your post.

George,
It wasn’t my intention to ‘pigeon-hole’ your mode of Catholic belief but your posts certainly reveal your strong Catholic identity, which I respect. The pill all ‘good’ Catholics must swallow is the charismatic and ‘mysterious’ papal ‘infallibility’, (certainly not to be confused with ‘impeccability’). The ensuing doctrine and Church magisterium can be quite problematic. With the issue of ‘birth-control’ for example, the CC must “… preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain…and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin " (Pope Pius XI ). A modern Catholic mind may indeed have considered this archaic, but in 1968 Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae reiterated the anti-birth-control stance, despite a Papal Commission voting 30-5 to relax these birth control concerns.

Any Catholic dissent is taken to be schismatic and, as I pointed out, some 8 out of 10 will probably 'bend' Catholic dogma to conform to what they believe as being more practical in ‘reality’. If Jacinta’s definition is correct most Catholics are, in principle, apostates through their non-allegiance to Church teaching. Because of his prominent leadership role and obvious undermining of Church authority, Father Kennedy is certainly singled out and ‘prosecuted’ for his insubordination. The burden of being a ‘good’ Catholic would therefore be beyond most – if not, all. Recurring visits to the confessional really don’t ‘cut it’.

So yes, if Father Kennedy wishes to be a ‘good’ Catholic he needs either to repent or fall on his sword and leave the Catholic faith. Choice seems a bit stark when, afterall, Fr. Kennedy seems to emulate the finest example upon which the Church believes it has based herself.

Mr MacLennan I think you may be thinking just a bit too deeply about this conflict.

In simple terms it's about this:
Fr Kennedy at some point in time chose to no longer believe what the Catholic Church teaches. This is reflected in his recent comments such as: he doesn't believe in heaven or hell, he is uncertain about an afterlife, Jesus did not start a Church and certainly not the Catholic Church. Unfortunately nobody really knows what Fr Kennedy believes, but we all know he doesn't believe what a Catholic Priest is supposed to believe and teach.
It's interesting to read his reply to a question posed to him in a recent "live" blogging session for a suburban newspaper in Brisbane. Fr Kennedy says:
"Prenna,

We are at this point in time remaining in the Catholic church because so many of our community are not yet ready to cut ties with the Catholic church. The Catholic church like every family is disfunctional. As a theologian said in the last century, She is a whore but she is our Mother. If your own family is disfunctional it's still hard to cut yourself off from your parents and siblings but I take your point and we certainly are not dismissing it. The publicity however is good in itself. I recieve no pay cheque from Rome. My salary of about $500 a week comes from the community. The publicity is encouraging the debate to continue around Australia and even internationally. From that point of view it is important to stay in the church for as long as we can.

Sincerely,

Peter Kennedy"

Sourced: http://city-south-news.whereilive.com.au/blogs/story/we-wont-walk-away-from-the-church/

It seems to me Fr Kennedy is simply using the Catholic Church and this controversy to further his own cause. And I think that has been the case all along at St Mary's -- ignoring what the Church teaches but using the Church as a platform to promote his own ideas.

I may be accused of being reductionist but it aappears to me that the core issue here is simple. It makes no difference whether the priest in question is a good priest or a bad priest; whether his parish does good or does not; nor whether the Catholic Church itself needs to change or does not.

A Catholic priest, upon ordination, makes certain vows - as do those in other occupations such as medical doctors. Indeed, a witness in a civil trial similarly takes a vow to tell the truth. A vow, whether it be under a god or not, is binding. To take a vow is to enter into a contract and penalties exist for those who break this contract. In the case of a witness, for example, the penalty is to be accused of perjury and in the case of a medical Doctor, an adminstrator of the law or a priest, the penalty is to be struck off.

No matter what other views a priest may hold in regard to other tenets of the Catholic church, if he breaks his vows i.e. renounces the supremacy of the Pope, he, like those in secular office, must accept the consequences.

I think that bringing in the character, ideology, capacity for good or evil is all extraneous. A man made a contract. He broke it. It really seems to be that simple.

Romany

For a change and as non catholic I agree with you totally.

'I think that bringing in the character, ideology, capacity for good or evil is all extraneous. A man made a contract. He broke it. It really seems to be that simple.'

If a climate change believer then becomes a denier for any reason no doubt the Greens would dis fellowship him. And they should be entitled to do so.

you guys have the wrong end of the stick. this isn't about contracts. this isn't about kennedy.

this is about the catholic church. this is about what the catholic church cannot accept, and what that says about the catholic church. and what it says is that they're a pathetic, narrow-minded cult, more concerned for rules and authority and ritual than they are for any real meaning. once again, to hell with them.

Great Australians: There are two other men I have met in my life who remind me of Father Kennedy. One is Kevin Pierpoint [Chief] who worked with 'kids at risk' in Central NSW and Wilcannia and the other Jeff Guest in Cape York who like Kevin made such a difference to real people's, families, little kids lives.... with or without the help of the system. I mention them because their good faith as people, more than being an "institution" offered far more goodwill, for the reasons we ask than the clones dressed in white-gold prattling superconductive scripts, the policy clauses that bare shallow credence in action.

Not surprising, powers mortal also cut them short for embracing a world outside mainstream - a judgement I classify as having poor success in all areas dealing with reality in all its diversity.

What father Kennedy and his supporters, what Father Kennedy and his affiliations, what Father Kennedy and real Australian citizens are doing together in St Marys South Brisbane is an example worth more than the spin of fallacious, imprudent pseudo sophistry. The perpetrating misguided rod of the Pell and Bathersby clan.

St Stephens - especially given Bathersby's recent association and or visits to St Stephan's Vienna is insulting to the generosity of the higher spiritual and cultural values we place to the name of St Stephen.

Who was St Stephan.... is there not a double standard here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Stephen

Who is Mary to the Pope and the Church?

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/austria07/venerationofmary.htm

It amazes me how these priestly-men accept the depth, ritual and blessing of 'Its Reactivation by the Counter-Reformation' yet could deny us common the practical aspects of the importance Counter-Reformation in our daily lives.

Bishop Altmann of Passau, "a huge venerator of Mary. He did not only found Gottweig Convent and dedicate it to Mary"; he also had a greater influence on the education of the Babenberg St. Leopold III." The depth here and throughout history is why what is going on.... worldwide, is so meaningful, today.

Who was Bishop Altmann of Passau and what did he stand for?
http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&q=Bishop+Altmann+of+Passau&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=1

see miacat below;

Bishop Altmann of Passau great significance lies in the fact that he was an energetic promoter of the common life for the clergy. As with St Stephen and others who worked to bring the Church forward, it is the misuse of power of the bigots in the church's that cost the greater wellbeing of so many throughout history, as we see it's power waged today.

My point, we are all connected as is the DNA we each have through our bloodline, as if our awareness of the past can ever be so easily disregarded as anyhow....or whatever for the sake of it... deemed Ad Hoc through our own time.

Given the importance of St Marys to local Indigenous peoples here, get this for a spin on hosting spectacle for sheer convince?

"Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent depicted in Cathedral liturgy"
As said at the St Stephen's Cathedral to a group of primary school children of the Brisbane Archdiocese, an interlude following the Gospel involved depiction of the aboriginal Rainbow Serpent, to the accompaniment of didgeridoo and aboriginal dancers"

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/oct2000p4_78.html

"The story of Noah tells us of the promise and hope that God has given us. The story of the Rainbow Serpent reminds us of the wisdom and the story of those who first lived in our land. The colours of the rainbow which you are all wearing today acknowledge our differences whilst also celebrating our unity."

Seriously;

Where is Tim Fischer, our Australian Ambassador of Holy See and where are the Frank Chaney and others who have been given privilege and honour and special acclaim from the Churches. Mediation could help. It is not good enough that these people appear on the airwaves, gain much promotion on the TV and yet do nothing [unprompted] to advance the needs of people, in struggle, at street level.

Where is any support "fomal" for the rights of Indigenous people who are trying to make pledge, a pathway through good faith.

The "reconciliation" process needs to be part of everyday life, not just about the fan-fair and gloss it is pasted-and-expensively on.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

In reading these posts, I am amazed at the lack of concern for the Rule Book. I would have thought that the first Rule in any church would be to follow the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ. If St Mary’s follows the Rules of the Bible, all strength to it.

The English Roman Catholics split with Rome over just that issue way back in 1215, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ as proclaimed by Matthew 18 Verses 15-20, became the Magna Carta and the New Testament became the English Constitution.

The central commandment of the New Testament which is proclaimed loud and clearly in simple English, is Judge not that ye be not judged. Instead of ten commandments as was dictated by the Old Testament, Jesus came and said there are only two that you need to remember in order to get the blessings of Almighty God. One is have no God but him, and the second was love your neighbour as yourself. Loving your neighbour entails refraining from making any judgment whatsoever. We call it the Grace of Jesus Christ.

Now the Irish have self government, the Irish Catholics have nothing to rebel against, and it is no longer necessary to show solidarity by attending Church. In my Church, we say we are the body of Christ, many parts but one body. What really saddens me is that we have lost the sense of good government that Protestant Christianity delivers. We have sinning Judges and Magistrates committing the one unforgivable sin, passing judgment on a fellow human. Luke 12 Verse 10 makes blasphemy the only sin, which can never be forgiven. To refuse to call a jury makes a Judge a blasphemer. Only the Holy Spirit knows the truth.

From 1215 until today, the English have been incredibly lucky, or has it been their obedience to Almighty God? Never invaded, though many tyrants tried. Won every war they ever got into, eventually. Is it luck or is it the hand of the Almighty God that non Christians deny? All strength to Father Kennedy and his Christian flock

Father Kennedy has shredded the straight-jacket that confined him to a rule and sex ridden Church. The paradox is that Fr Kennedy wishes to remain a priest.
A priest is an intermediary between God and humans. A priest placates, intercedes, and pleads with God on behalf of others. This is not Fr Kennedy's way.
Kennedy has gathered around him a group that tries to practise the Golden Rule. A rule that did not come down to us in tablets of stone but was first taught by sages ages ago, one of whom was the Buddha whose statue adorns the grounds of Fr K.s church.
My wish for Fr K, who has traveled a long way on the road to enlightenment is that he goes all the way,which will happen when he realises that Christianity is based on a massive non sequitur...on the belief that we need salvation because of Adam's sin.
Now If Adam sinned Adam might need salvation but please leave me out of it.
Sin is personal, no-one can sin for you or on your behalf.
As to the question of God's existence, this has been discussed so exhaustively elsewhere that I will remain silent here.

If the research on this website is even close to accurate, what we are seeing with Father Kennedy is part of a process that has been developing for 2,000 (christian) years. If you don't like the rules, change them and start a new club.

Could this be why there are currently some 34,000 christianic variants alone? That is 17 new christianic variants per year averaged over the last 2,000 years.

Fr. Kennedy and his congregation seem to represent just another new "club" in the making.

The reasearch indicates some 276 christianic variants in Australia. We have a long way to go to catch up with the 4,684 in the USA but Fr. Kennedy should help things along by taking our total to 277.

It astonishes me sometimes the we actually debate the pro's and con's of all these religions whilst missing the point that they cannot all be right, therefore they must all be wrong. If you can't convince humans of "the one true faith" after 3,000 years. forget it and move on.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

Peter Kennedy is a human being who is caught up in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy. At the time he entered he probably meant to fulfill his vows of obedience. It is unreasonable to expect a person to make vows for life in the first place.

Buddhist orders allow a monk or nun to make vows for a limited period of time. They recognize that both the person and the order may change, and it may not continue to be a good fit. We have divorce laws because we recognize that that intimate relationship may become untenable.

When a person realizes that the organization and he are at odds there are several choices of action. One may leave the organization and start a new life as many priests and nuns have done.

Some rare individuals with great political skills and dedication may work within the organization and rise to the top and then make changes when they have the power. Two examples are Pope John XXIII and Gorbachov. They both were men of good will, and both failed. Gorbachov failed because the Communist Party could not be reformed, and the country collapsed. Pope John XXIII failed because he could not institutionalise his reforms. Successor popes have gradually negated them.

Peter Kennedy like the Berrigan brothers and other Catholic clerics have tried to make changes for the better in the institution. I think Kennedy has been wildly successful. His parish is a place that has welcomed a number of disparate people who would not have felt at home in other parishes. He has opened up the possibility of desirable social change to members of the non-Catholic public and had their cooperation. I am one of them.

The Catholic church has become more and more under the influence of the reactionary organization, Opus Dei, with whom Pope Benedict stayed when he visited Australia. Archbishop Bathersby has allowed Father Kennedy to continue and expand his ministry for a number of years. I think the pressure on him to rid St. Marys of Peter Kennedy has been immense.

I sympathise with both men.

Thanks collette, Otokonoko for factual information; Father Kennedy is apparently not such an idealist as the article seems to imply, neither was he only a “liturgical dissident“ as I thought.

bushbasher,
Is this the language you would like Catholics, including Bathersby, to use in dealing with those who see life differently?

relda,
Any attempt to address comprehensively your list of standard objections to Catholicism - a mixture of facts and misunderstandings - would exceed many times the 350-words limit. [For instance, papal infallibility (in interpreting the scripture and tradition) is a much more complicated concept than, say the “infallibility” (in interpreting Australian Law) of the High Court of Australia as the final court of appeal, a “pill that all Australians must swallow“. I do not think I could explain the meaning and applicability of what is called papal infallibility in 350 words even if I had the necessary qualifications.]

Let me just say this. As you know, I never had any RE at school which was anti-religion, anti-Christianity, especially anti-Vatican. When I came home with things I felt disagreed with my father‘s word-view, he never said “they are wrong, this is how you should see it” but explained how much more complicated the problem - hence also the possible solutions - was than the simple answers offered by Marx-Leninists on one hand, or the “pious old lady” on the other. I still carry traces of his influence: never trust simple answers to complicated (conceptually, morally, politically, historically etc.) problems.

>> Any Catholic dissent is taken to be schismatic<<
Schismatics (today) are those who trespass against Canon Law. They get excommunicated, especially the clergy (e.g. the Levevbrists). Dissidents (e.g. Kueng, Curran and recently Haight) are - rightly or wrongly - not permitted to present their theological views as those of the Church, but they are not excommunicated. They are discussed as any other Christian theologian.

My faith (religion) is Christian, not Catholic; Catholic is just the version of it that I adhere to for cultural and other reasons, not easy to explain to an outsider. (ctd)

<<bushbasher, Is this the language you would like Catholics, including Bathersby, to use in dealing with those who see life differently?>>

george, do you really think it matters to me whether or not bathersby's authoritarian nastiness is politely worded? more importantly, do you think it matters to kennedy? does it matter at all?

the only reason bathersby's choice of language matters is so bathersby can maintain his and his silly cult's cheap cloak of goodness and godliness. you might be fooled, but i am not.

(ctd) When discussing the Catholic and, say, Lutheran versions of Christianity, there are some things that are better seen from the one perspective, others from the other. As there are insights that are better expressed in English than, say, in German, and vice versa. If you have sufficient knowledge of both languages, you can compare. However, if one of them is your mother tongue it will always show through. As in our case.

The pre-Vatican II Church‘s approach to Protestants was that they should give up their new found identities, and return to the fold of the “Mother Church”. Today some want the Catholic Church to give up its identity, to sever its centuries old ties to tradition, and become just one of the myriad of Christian Churches and denominations. I think both approaches are examples of wrong ecumenism.

An essential feature of Catholic Christianity is its teaching about freedom of informed conscience. Unfortunately, it is often ignored (by conservatives) or abused (by rebels). Let me put it also this way: The old slide rule was based on the concept of logarithm; the slide rule was abandoned but not logarithms which remain the same even in the age of computers. The Church insists - or should insist - on the importance of “logarithms” but many (including some bishops) interpret this as a preference for the “slide rule“ over the “computer“, and base their acceptance or rejection on this interpretation.

Until the present stock market meltdown it was generally accepted, that it had its ups and downs but the overall direction was upwards. I think something similar can be said about the fortunes of Christianity, especially its Catholic version: the recent decades have witnessed a sharp “down“ (within the cultural West) but looking at the 2000 years of its history, I believe the overall trend is up and there won’t come a “meltdown”. Yes, this is just a belief, whatever its motivations. One of them might be the fact that e.g. today there are many more Chinese than German Catholics attending mass every Sunday (not to mention Christians in general).

More Chinese Catholics than Germans? Catholicism is not disoriented.

Davidf,

Yes, it appears that Kennedy has tried to make changes from within; and Right-wing or moderate Catholics can argue till the cows come home about the advisability of these changes. However, when he allowed his feeling about the infalibility of the Pope to become public, he shot himself in the foot. Being educated in Catholic lore he did so with the knowledge that he was nullifying the vows which that lore stated entitled him to be an anointed priest of the Catholic Church.

George.
In some instances I do think it is valid to allow a simple explanation. Yes, it is true that The Church has wanted to rid themselves of this troublesome priest: but they would have had a really difficult time doing so had he remained, publicly, steadfast to his vows.

His public renunciation did simplify the matter. As I said, the issue of the way he conducts his ministry need not even be cited. His maverick status and that of his congregation; controversies such as the Buddhist statue...all become redundant if the man is no longer a Catholic priest. Which the renuciation of his vows ensure.

BB - I shall make a note in my diary. Although, I seem faintly to remember than on one other occasion back in the mists of time we actually were in agreement on another issue. Careful: 3 strikes and you're out as my opposition: we should have to become confederates!

I apologise for the following, but it seems apropos.

A golfer playing in Ireland hooked his drive into the woods. Looking for his ball, he found a little Leprechaun flat on his back, a big bump on his head and the golfer's ball beside him.

Horrified, the golfer got his water bottle from the cart and poured it over the little guy, reviving him.

'Arrgh! What happened?' the Leprechaun asked.

'I'm afraid I hit you with my golf ball,' the golfer says.

'Oh, I see. Well, ye got me fair and square. Ye get three wishes, so whaddya want?'

'Thank God, you're all right!' the golfer answers in relief. 'I don't want anything, I'm just glad you're OK, and I apologize.'

And the golfer walks off.

'What a nice guy,' the Leprechaun says to himself.

I have to do something for him. I'll give him the three things I would want... a great golf game, all the money he ever needs, and a fantastic sex life.'

A year goes by and the golfer is back. On the same hole, he again hits a bad drive into the woods and the Leprechaun is there waiting for him.

'Twas me that made ye hit the ball here,' the little guy says. 'I just want to ask ye, how's yer golf game?'

'My game is fantastic!' the golfer answers. I'm an internationally famous golfer now.' He adds, 'By the way, it's good to see you're all right.'

'Oh, I'm fine now, thank ye. I did that fer yer golf game, you know. And tell me, how's yer money situation?'

'Why, it's just wonderful!' the golfer states. 'When I need cash, I just reach in my pocket and pull out $100 bills I didn't even know were there!'

'I did that fer ye also.' And tell me, how's yer sex life?'

The golfer blushes, looks around then whispers, 'Once, sometimes twice a week.'

'What??' responds the Leprechaun in shock. 'That's all? Only once or twice a week?'

'Well,' says the golfer, 'I figure that's not bad for a Catholic priest in a small parish.'

I'm probably an atheist.

However, I recognise that religions - including Christianity - provide billions of people worldwide with frameworks of meaning and morality around which they organise their lives.

In this case, it seems to me that the Brisbane diocese of the Catholic church has exceeded its remit in going for Father Kennedy because he has apparently offended the local Archbishop's authority.

I mean, this is a church and congregation that defies trends for mainstream Christian denominations by attracting and retaining believers to the faith. That this novel addition to the congregation apparently incorporates significant proportions of Indigenous and gay Christians apparently offends the Pope's local branch manager.

Although I'm not a Christian and I don't live in Brisbane, as it happens I'm familiar with this particular Church and its associated annexes, via attendance at community events and meetings held there.

As a non-Christian, St Mary's Church at South Brisbane has always epitomised to me the model of enlightened Christianity in praxis. That it attracts Murris, Gays, students and street people only adds to its intrinsic value to the community.

It's not as if Catholic dogma is immutable in local contexts - for example, priests can marry in parts of Africa and Eastern Europe.

This seems to me to be a rather interesting case of contemporary Catholic dogmatism gone awry.

God help them.

(Assuming there is one, that is)

It seems that when we get into the realm of Almighty God the interest of the congregation that meets in this forum is awakened. Now Father Kennedy has managed to get a good group going, the management at head office wants to shut him down.

I once got a letter from Archbishop Peter Jensen in Sydney, saying that any law contrary to the Bible was void. I agree with him. The Pope thought the Magna Carta was contrary to his intepretation of the Holy Bible, way back in 1215, and annulled it. Trouble was the Poms thought that was not cricket, and refused to accept the umpires decision.

That is the law that the Roman Catholics have accepted by coming to Australia, accepting membership of this country, and then promptly trying to assert authoritarian rule in the Papal model. The Papal model is to have a Priest/Judge. The English model was to have a selection of 12 members of the Congregation overrule any law made by the Pope or Parliament, if they thought it un-Christian. Pope Robert Menzies, Pope Malcolm Fraser, and Pope John Howard like the Papal model, and have set out to divide Australia into nine Papal enclaves, with one Archbishop, and eight other Bishops, of the Secular Church. The Division in the Labor Party between the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics, led to an end to forty years of Labor in Queensland.

The Church/capitalist model is that the Church corporation owns the building. Just like a wanton landlord, it can evict a tenant, but this tenant is not an ordinary tenant, it is the body of Christ. Trouble is a pesky little sect made up of barristers and solicitors, has taken over the law in Australia and the law has become the God. Almighty God invented anger, for the sole purpose of enforcing the law. It is time the nasty landlord backed off, and left the Body of Christ as the tenant. The threat to bomb the Archbishop was taken seriously by the Police. Its time Rome backed off, and obeyed the Holy Bible

George,
Thankyou for your long and thoughtful response – but I do continue in failing to understand the very idea of ‘Papal Infallibility'. Your comparison of this 'infallibility' with ‘Australian Law’ should take into account the British based concept of common law and its relation to equity law – i.e. the common law can adapt to new circumstances, or to quote Charles Dickens, “If the law supposes that… the law is a ass – an idiot”.

Now, I do accept the Catholic Church offers far more than mere dogma but an intransigence within an hierarchical magisterium finds change difficult and above all, is most reluctant to admit its teachings have been wrong and need to change. Despite his great intellectual power, Ratzinger seems ‘enslaved’ to an establishment which ‘compells’ him to write a document entitled Dominus Iesus (2000). This states that other than the Catholic faith, all religions, and indeed Christian denominations, are "defective". The take-home message is that the Anglican Church, for example, is not a proper church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is a mere layperson of dubious baptism. David f, however, has given us the good example of Pope John XXIII, whose warm hearted nature and unique personality was exceptionally above the norm. The most momentous act of his pontificate was his decision to call an ecumenical council of the Universal Church, the first since 1870 and only the twenty-first in the Church's 2,000-year history – not even Sellick is able to ‘stoop’ to such ecumenism.

George Pell unreservedly backs John Bathersby, acting on the logic of an institution. Unless you follow that particular logic and defend the Pope, defend the key doctrine, take action against priests who are more and more looking like Protestants, or not even Protestants - unless you do that, the fear is, you've lost your institution altogether. An interesting read is, ‘Archbishop Pell and the Banning of Tomorrow’s Catholic’ (http://morwoodm.homestead.com/files/tc2.htm) - this shows the dilemma of ‘spirit’ vs dogma.

“The essential feature of Catholic Christianity is its teaching about freedom of informed conscience”- and Father Kennedy shows himself to be quite ‘informed’.

Isn't this exciting?

Bathersby, cleary little more than an auld-fart doing what he is told by his Opus Dei chums, is up against a real threat.

But what I can't understand, is why any woman, why any gay person, why any Indigenous person, or homeless... the list gets longer, would bother to have anything at all to do with the RC church, even with this priest and his more reasonable approach to life-on-Earth.

Whatever they do in St. Mary's could be conducted outside the corrupt framework of any Church, never mind the Christian edifice/artifice.

Why bother with Popes at all?

Why bother with Bathersby?

Why bother pretending God has anything to do with any of this?

Although, purely for the trouble it would cause Bathersby and the Pope, I'm rather hoping there will be a sit-in there and a lock-out of the poor sap who has been told to 'spread some love' there for the Vatican.

Good on yers Father Kennedy... keep up the good work.

I listened to Mike Huckabee this morning and he put the present generations confusion about principles very simply. The Catholic Church is not a democracy but a theocracy where the Pope is final authority so why expect it to be run on democratic lines. The Catholic Church is not the Kingdom of God so why expect it to put Jesus on the throne when the Pope is their head. The principle of sowing and reaping belong to the kingdom of God and are not changed by what we think or expect is why if you always do what you have always done you always git what you always got. If you expect a different outcome without a paradyne shift you are doomed to disapointment. Today we penalise right behaviour and reward wrong behaviour. Penalties Discourage Rewards Encourage. Spare the rod and
spoil the child. Train up a child in the way he should go and he will never depart from it. No training and you have a wild child. Not rocket science but I hope it gives some thought to chew on

romany, i wouldn't know what to do with an ally. i'll definitely watch my step!

reida, that was a fascinating link. obviously just one side of the story, and a story i can't understand in detail. but a wild story. of course, the writer left out the most important question: was pell's language polite?

"practice of creativity and love that is the secret of the success"

As any group will know, if every member undertakes the "practice of creativity" then, irrespective of how much 'love' there is (and should be amongst members) you do not get a unified outcome.

Think of it like your local community band. Regardless of how skilled the musicians might be (or how hopeless!) you just can't let everyone play in whatever key or time signature they want, unless you just want noise. Sure, everyone is participating and doing what they want, but the 'harmony' is not real.

Fr Kennedy is like those parents who leave their kids on 42nd Street - Anything goes! Are the youth of today better off for this lack of parental discipline? Maybe, maybe not?

This is a case of ego overcoming common sense. If Fr K and his flock didn't see him as "Special K' and just towed the line on certain fundamentals of ritual and practice, then the right wing forces would have not been able to make a case. This is an example of not only being left of field, but, having left the field.

As a member of . Marys community, I have read these views with interest. I have been raised Catholic, but long ago realised that many of the Catholic man-made rules are rubbish. At St. Marys there are a community who are Christ centred. This dispute is about power and obedience to a man-made set of rules, and whether the Catholic church power brokers are able to allow individual communities to develop that are relevant to modern thinking and society. The answer to date is NO.

bushbasher,
I take your answer to my question as “yes“. Nevertheless I am glad there are many Christians, atheists and others, also on this forum, who use a civil and decent language even when expressing disagreement with other people’s views, positions or actions.

david f,
According to Wikipedia, there are 8 million (loyal to Rome) plus 5 million (“patriotic”) Catholics in China, and from the same source 14.0% of German Catholics (or about 4% of the total German population, i.e. 3.2. million ) attended mass on Sundays in 2006. One can assume that more or less all Catholics in China attend, or would like to, mass on Sundays.

CJ Morgan
Priestly celibacy has never been a dogma just a policy, and indeed there are married Catholic priests e.g. of the Byzantine rite (my step-grandfather was one). Well, I know dogma is not the only thing misunderstood by those who do not like the Catholic outlook.

relda,
We agree on many things, but on these matters we have to agree to disagree, otherwise it would mean you becoming a Catholic or I converting to a Protestant version of Christianity. I regret that comparing papal infallibility to High Court decisions did not help in making it more palatable, but as I said, this was not an easy concept to understand. And yes, I hope that a future Pope will find an interpretation of it that will allow him to write an Encyclical that will override Humanae Vitae and Dominus Iesus. (ctd)

(ctd) I do not necessarily defend the Pope only his authority (as I would defend that of the PM, even if I did not like everything he was saying or doing) and I did not understand what action I could/should take against rebellious priests.

I am also sorry if you think I am not a Catholic in good standing if I do not take literally everything coming from Vatican or this or that Archbishop. As you know, some people think we are not Christians in good standing if we do not take the bible literally. I am used to both accusations.

By “informed conscience“ of a lay Catholic, one means “having taken into account the official position of the Church“. In case of a priest there is an additional requirement of discipline. Of course, neither the Archbishop nor the Pope (nor you and I) can judge whether Father Kennedy sincerely followed his conscience - that must be left to a Higher Instance. His superiors can only judge whether or not he is disruptive. Now that I read more about him - including the above admission from a member of his congregation - I can only say that there are many Protestant ministers and Evangelical preachers (they also can comfort crowds) I have known or read about whose Christianity in words and in action I could understand better, and value higher, than that of him.

Nevertheless I think all Catholics should wish Father Kennedy all the luck (and God‘s blessings) in doing the work he has been doing following his conscience, however probably not in the name and under the auspices of the Catholic Church if he cannot accept its rules. Technically he might attain the status of those in the Brotherhood of st Pius X as far as his relation to the Church is concerned, and as sad as it sounds it might be left to secular courts to decide who owns and has the right to use St Mary‘s church.

Dear George,

I didn't disagree about the relative number of Catholics in China and Germany. I merely had the temerity to make a pun.

george, my answer to your question was not "yes": it was "i don't give a damn". once again, you might consider why.

your preaching is uncalled for. i've been civil and decent to you. i respect you. i don't respect bathersby or pell, and i don't respect an institution so dependent on authority, and so fueled by fear.

The original thesis was faulty in not including the other Churches .
A more real explanation would be found had they been included .
I am the product of the baffling bonding of the Orange and the Green .
All the Churches in Bendigo are washed up , heaps converted to homes , art studios etc . Our beautiful Cathedral odd funerals and weddings . While I love the Cathedral , in the back of my mind is a file , in this file is the knowledge that people were starving in Bendigo when it was built .
I often watch Songs of Phrase on the ABC , my kids think I have lost "it" . They don't know because they have never experienced "it", the beauty and pleasure of singing in church . My day of reckoning came reading either Time Magazine or National Geographic , Glaring out at me was a very young Kurdish mother , very distraught , sitting on a collapsed cardboard box in the snow beside her three small naked children wrapped in plastic , dead and looking out through half closed eyes at the promised land from the mountains between Turkey and Kurdistan . Where were the Gods that day .

I have been following this thread out of a mild curiosity as to how each side justifies itself.

I have yet to read anything that changes my original view. That if you trade as Woolworths, and receive all the benefits of the brand name, then you don't expect those benefits to continue if you decide to trade as Father Kennedy's Novelty Shop, however popular the store may be.

The Pope and his various representatives have a responsibility to protect the brand name against all forms of dilution, just as Woolworths will protect theirs.

Whether you think Woolworths is a good or bad store, or whether Catholicism is a good or bad form of religion, the principle seems to be pretty straightforward.

I'm a bit surprised it is at all controversial.

Pericles
Suppose that Soofworth is a franchise whose motto is The Fresh Foods People, whem in fact most of its stores sell rotten food.
You are one of the exceptions and do sell fresh food, and have the
temerity to criticise Head Office. Head Office retaliates and tries to close you down.What do you do?
Do you meekly submit or do you defy Head Office?

Unfortunately , for Father Kennedy at least, if we are to live in an ordered society, there must be rules. In this case it is the rules of the Catholic Church with which he must abide if he is to remain a member. As someone has pointed out previously, the CC is a theocratic organisation and any change in the rules can only come from above. (By "Above", I am not referring to heaven or God, only those who would purport to represent same.) That is not to say that those below should not strive to change the minds of those above, but they should not hold their breath whilst waiting for a change.

If the good Father wishes to continue doing his good work, in the same manner as he has done previously, he really has no choice but to shift camp to some other venue where he may be able to operate under a different set of rules, not under the auspices of the Catholic Church. I sympathise with his dilemma, but his bishop or even Cardinal Pell have no room to move in any other way. Them's the rules.

David

George,
As we have moved to a secular government and society, I can happily accept your defence of an institution, quite simply because as an organisation (and this can and should apply to many other contibutors here also), the Catholic Church doesn't pose (or at least certainly shouldn’t) any real threat. This applies to any other religious organisation. Thank God, and under a secular ‘authority’, any exception/s to the ‘rule' are acknowledged and importantly, acted upon.

Pericles makes an interesting analogy with regard to brand name and packaging – i.e. if you don’t like the Catholic ‘brand’, simply don’t 'shop' there. Pericles and many others profess to not only dislike the ‘brand’ but also the ‘product’. St. Mary’s may also be a Church or ‘product’ that many dislike (or hate) – but many 'love' this Church, afterall, parishioners are able to sit anywhere they like, including on the altar, communion is freely given to practicing homosexuals, open acknowledgement is given to the traditional owners of the land on which the church is built and the homeless are allowed to sleep in the church when not in use. Kennedy openly calls some church leaders power hungry and bigoted, Muslims and Jews are welcomed into the church and are allowed to participate in the church and invited to Mass (communion) - where all three religions combine to worship the God of Abraham and Isaac. I guess Kennedy upsets more than just one religious ‘brand’. Yes.. it is all rather challenging and it certatinly ‘informs’ my conscience at a level lying well beneath that of officialdom.

Ironically, Father Kennendy, by also saying, "there are many paths to God, not just through the Roman Church" incensed one Parishioner to the point of mistaking the image of a praying monk, in St Mary’s, for a statue of Buddha. It does cause one to reflect, no matter the 'packaging', people will generally only ‘open it’ in order to find their own content (or perhaps in reality, their true lack of substance).

So, taking all into account, the controversy doesn't surprise me at all.

Please don't invent stuff, relda.

>>Pericles and many others profess to not only dislike the ‘brand’ but also the ‘product’<<

Only insofar as I exclude it from my personal life. I have absolutely nothing at all against the "product", whether you are referring to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

As for the brand, I only object when it is used for purposes that infringe upon those freedoms that I personally hold to be important, or as a weapon to hold people in fear or with which to foment hatred against others.

But once again, I do not "dislike" the brands or the products per se. I have seen them do a lot of good for some people, I just don't see myself as one of them.

With that small quibble aside, I entirely agree with your observations.

Pericles,
I’m certainly glad we can come to an entire agreement on the observations I've made previously. But, as you’re a stickler in correcting the misconceptions of others – and enjoy their roasting (and both, might I add, are rather appropriate to this forum), I too have a slight quibble.

From you last post : “…I have absolutely nothing at all against the "product", whether you are referring to religion in general or Christianity in particular.” does not quite stack up with your recent, “..I have found Hillsong folk to display some of the least objectionable traits of any brand of Christianity. Right up there with the Salvos, in fact.” The “...least objectionable traits of any brand of Christianity” really does bear direct contradiction to saying that you “have absolutely nothing at all against [it]”

A minor quibble I know… because, I imagine, we both hold high admiration for freedom, and also as something tantamount for our sense of well-being. And, does our real freedom come, not so much from within our sense of modernity - with the ability to do what we like, but does it come in the ethical sense, with the ability to do what we should? Spinoza argued that all human behaviour is explicable by causal laws (genetic determinism). Karl Marx claimed history was made by ‘material’, specifically economic, factors. Sigmund Freud contended that actions are the result of unconscious and irrational drives, the chief of which relate to the early years of childhood, especially the Oedipus complex. All three ‘arguments’, in reality, deny freedom – where, ultimately, we can neither ‘choose’ to do what we ‘like’ or do as we ‘should’.

Liberty is not a given of the human situation. As with art, literature, music and poetry, libertry is a distinctive achievement of the spirit. The training, discipline and apprenticeship, demanded in its achievement, are often forgotten.

Hi Gary,
While agree with Gramsci's analysis of the Catholic Church I believe you have misaligned it in the context of St Mary's. St Mary's does not represent the intellectual traditiion within the church, far from it. In my dealings with St Mary's over the last twenty years there has been a lack of intellectualism in this community, so much so that I am yet to find a left-wing catholic theologian or philosopher comfortable with the mish mash of ritual that is practiced at St Mary's. St Mary's represents a striving peasantry (only in the sense of Gramsci's analysis as most attendees are University educated but not in Religion), lacking the intellectual rigor that becomes obvious in their rituals. I have to admit that I have had to remove myself from baptisms in the church in the past because as a catholic intellectual and a student of Aboriginal Religion I was offended by their lack of respect to both traditions.
This is not entirely the fault of St Mary's but more to do with the Churches complete disinterest in educating its laity.
A better analysis of this situation would be a use of Raymond Williams' understanding of the split between culture and society best explained in his book of the same name and further developed in his book The Long Revolution after he read Gramsci.
St Mary's has strived to reverse the trend in modern capitalism to bifurcate Culture from Society by experimenting with its liturgy to make it an expression of the the thoughts, desires, anxieties of a left leaning catholic community in urban Australia. Its only fault has been its lack of understanding the depth of its own subaltern tradition within catholicism. Perhaps the Universal Church could be a little more understanding and help this little community to understand its own tradition rather than acting in such an imperious way

Post Script Erratum: I refered to the book The Long Revolution, I meant to refer to Raymond Williams' book Marxism and Literature

bushbasher,
You just repeated whom you don’t respect. My concern was not about persons but about a kind of language I don’t respect. So, I suppose, we are fifty-fifty.

relda,
I can also happily accept your defense of Father Kennedy’s right to have his own “institution”, different from the Catholic Church, but this is not the issue here. Pericles sees Christianity as the “product”, its Catholic version as the (Woolworth) “brand“ and Father Kennedy‘s version as his own “Novelty Shop“, one of the “many paths to God, not just through the Roman Church" as you yourself quoted. At least this is how I understood Pericles, and I agree completely with his conclusion.

I did not quite understand your interpretation or Pericles’ analogy, but certainly many ‘dislike‘ and many ‘love‘ Kennedy’s Church, however this is not just a question of liking or disliking.

Of the things you list some are indeed questions of taste but what you do not seem to realise is that what Catholics call sacrament is an essential part of their identity, which is probably not the case with other Churches. There are seven sacraments, one of them being Holy Communion, but not attendance, or participation, at mass. Any Catholic mass is open to anybody (unless he/she wants to disrupt the liturgy), including Muslims or Jews, practicing homosexuals or heterosexuals that are not married. I have never heard that the Catholic Church would object to giving “open acknowledgement to the traditional owners of the land on which the church is built“ or to making the church available as a shelter for needy, as long as they use it in an appropriate manner. [As for sitting on the altar, I do not think you would like a visitor sit on your laptop, not because you dislike him, but because that is not the way to behave or to use a laptop.]

Only where sacraments, like Communion, are concerned, there are strict rules, and there are also traditional, less strict, rules on how to participate in the liturgy of the mass, binding for everybody, including Catholics, especially the priest.

fine, george. i'll accept a draw. you have more relevant fish to fry.

Yes your right but your problem is : How come his church is full and pulsating with life all yours are very lonely places .

Wow, ShazBaz, please introduce yourself next time you're in my church. You've obviously been there if you know how "lonely" it is. I just haven't noticed you through the crowds.

Time to stop the silly generalisations.

Otokonoko's church might be an exception, but ShazBaz001, Father Kennedy's church is full because he has discarded all the superfluous trappings of the Catholic tradition to become a real practicing Christian. That is why he must leave. To remain would be very churlish and would show that he lacks the courage of his convictions.

David

VK3AUU wrote: Father Kennedy's church is full because he has discarded all the superfluous trappings of the Catholic tradition to become a real practicing Christian.

As a non-Christian I am amused by the tendency of various branches of Christianity to consider other branches as not real Christians. Those who believe as I do are real. Others are not. Sounds like bigotry to me.

The quibbles get ever slighter, relda, but I really cannot let this pass.

>>The “...least objectionable traits of any brand of Christianity” really does bear direct contradiction to saying that you “have absolutely nothing at all against [it]”<<

Don't think so.

All of the brands have objectionable traits, in my view, ranging from the purblind evangelism of a Boaz to the Catholic prohibition on contraception in Africa. The fact that I identified a "least objectionable" trait does not in any way contradict my opinion of the product itself.

If I consider any product, it will have good and bad points. This car might be very luxurious but expensive to run, while that one may be economical but give me backache after a half-hour behind the wheel. Neither situation will change my view, however, that travelling around Sydney by car is the only feasible means to get the kids to sport of a weekend.

So it is quite admissible to be in favour of the product (car, religion), but rank the brands in an order of "least objectionable traits".

This would still hold true if I did not hold a driving licence at all, and was unable to judge the merits of the different cars as a driver.

I would still be justified in holding a view that, say, a Hummer is a more objectionable mode of inner-city transport than a Prius.

All of which is surprisingly relevant to this thread.

Far too much time is spent on brand competition within the religion market, and far too little on expanding the market segment itself.

In fact, spats like this over competing territories can cause consumers to reconsider their decision to invest in the product in the first place.

Although on the other hand, a broader awareness of what is available at Father Kennedy's Novelty Shop - as opposed to the mega-brand Woolworths that was there before - might actually expand the overall volume of trade.

Incidentaly, nwick, your Soofworth analogy fails when you describe them as selling rotten food. I don't believe quality is the issue here, only presentation.

In my previous post I said "Father Kennedy's church is full because he has discarded all the superfluous trappings of the Catholic tradition to become a real practicing Christian."

Possibly I should have said "Father Kennedy's church is full because he has discarded all the superfluous trappings of the Catholic tradition to become a really practising Christian." That is not to say that it is not possible for the Catholic Church itself to also better practise Christianity, but it seems to me that it has let dogma and ritual get in the way. In a more reasonable organisation, the bishop would have said to the priest, "I say, old chap, let's have a discussion and see what we can do to reach a compromise between our positions". Under Paul XXIII that might have been a possibility, certainly not under the present pontiff. If it were not for the charitable organisations such as Vinnies and its hospitals, the Catholic Church would have very little relevance in today's world.

Reaching 88 on June 3rd and having lost my wife who told me the night before she died that she still loved me, wondered why she said that after I'd boozed and played golf for much of our 32 years retirement.

Certainly I hugged and tearfully kissed her deeply and told her how much I loved her too, hoping of course as Christians we might meet again in an Afterlife.

But still must say that I have never been moved much by faith, even less so with what a mess we seem to be making of our world, making me rely much more on Hope, believing that such a prayer seems much more genuine these days than one of faith.

Cheers, BB, WA.

ShazBaz001,
As far as I know also the churches of the levebvrist Brotherhood of st Pius X (as well as the many Evangelical churches e.g. in the US, where they kept a “rightist” president in office for 8 years) are “full and pulsating” although they diverge from the Catholic position in the opposite direction: to the “right” of it, whereas Kennedy‘s direction is to the “left”, to use a very simplified language. [Kennedy and Williamson, neither of them excommunicated and neither of them allowed to function as priests.]

Both sides claim the Catholic Church will fade into irrelevance if it does not follow their direction. An that indeed is a problem, not for me but for the Catholic Church which, in addition to having to resist this pull from the two extremes, also has to (wants to) retain its, to large extent historically entrenched, identity.

VK3AUU,
"I say, old chap, let's have a discussion“ would probably be the right approach if Bathersby headed a local, Brisbane based, Church, and Kennedy wanted to remake it or split. However, as you well know, Bathersby is just the local representative of an institution with nominally over one billion adherents (and 914 archbishops as well as 405,000 priests), most of whom have never heard of either Bathersby or Kennedy.

bushbred,
Although it does not belong to what Christians call Revelation, I think Krishna’s “Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer” could be seen as such in the sense that it does not matter how you call your prayers - or whom you wish to direct them to - it is He who will hear and understand you (although I did not understand how Hope was an alternative to, and not a component of, faith ).

George wrote;

"However, as you well know, Bathersby is just the local representative of an institution with nominally over one billion adherents (and 914 archbishops as well as 405,000 priests), most of whom have never heard of either Bathersby or Kennedy."

Dear George,

At one time most citizens of the vast Roman Empire worshipped a pantheon of gods. At one time adherents of the Manichaean religion were found in Spain, China and all countries in between. To the best of my knowledge neither religion now has adherents.

Neither numbers nor extent determine the continued existence or correctness of a religion. I venture to say that the Catholic church, like all other religions, will one day be of interest only to antiquarians and historians.

You, I, Bathersby, Kennedy and Mrs. Calabash will mingle with the dust of eternity.

Round that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Dear david f

You might or might not be right about “the continued existence or correctness of“ the Catholic Church; neither you nor I will live to see what it will evolve into. However, the part you quoted is not about this but about the local significance of the incident, and the limited powers of Bathersby to negotiate on behalf of the whole Catholic Church (whatever its size might become in the future).

It appears that the Archbishop has decided to attempt mediation, using the former High Court Justice, Ian Callinan, and Father Kennedy is still standing firm. This disputation has highlighted the patent dishonesty of so many people who do not understand the nature of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a Commonwealth of Israel, as set out in Ephesians 2 verse 12, and Israel is not that brutal middle eastern nation State, but the name given to Jacob, the night he wrestled Almighty God.

Archbishop Bathersby should spend a night himself wrestling with Almighty God and consider his position. He along with all other Australians has submitted himself to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 and Constitution, and it binds him and all others to the Commonwealth with its Statutory reproduction of the principles of the New Testament. If Ian Callinan understands this, he showed no evidence while on the High Court.

One of the principles insisted upon by Roman Catholic Australians, before they would lift their boycott of the referenda conducted to ascertain the will of Almighty God, was that in the Commonwealth they would be treated equally, and owe allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, the Sovereign who reigns in the name of Almighty God. I refer to s 116 Constitution. It binds everyone, and says the Commonwealth shall not make a law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

The Commonwealth is like the Church of Jesus Christ, and each person in it is equal before Almighty God. In fact by submitting to the referendum in 1900, and agreeing to abide the terms of the contract, the entire Roman Catholic population of Australia, agreed that they would be governed by the principles of the New Testament.

I hope Justice Callinan understands that concept. If he does, he will tell the Archbishop, that in Australia, as opposed to Rome, freedom of worship is guaranteed, and as long as the congregation is respectful of the Church’s property, he has no right to judge their conduct, and impose the will of a philosophy foreign to the Commonwealth upon them

George,
Your first point indeed is not the issue, nor is it one I mentioned. I was referring to your right in defending your belief in a religious institution in the context of our current secular authority. From my reading of the situation, Kennedy’s motivation is not to split and separate from RCism, but to challenge it - albeit his actions may certainly lead to his sacking and removal of his effective function as Church leader and ‘Father’. I think the challenge and debate he creates is now quite relevant, as it always has been.

Those who wish to merely stand on a ‘book of rules’ will undoubtedly defend the RC church under the exclusivity of certain ‘club ritual’, but as has been mentioned by other commentators, the archbishop is the father figure of a religious family (even if dysfunctional) and not the ruthless chief executive of a corporation. An original Church based teaching, so reported, was, “In my Father's house are many mansions”. An obvious interpretation of this would be to simply imply a leeway and diversity amongst believers. The patterns of human imagination, need and desire, with combination of myth and legend (pagan or otherwise) can convolute any simple interpretation. There are obviously Catholics who believe that St Mary's have prostituted the Mass and perverted it, and this “has misled those attending it into an act that risks their immortal souls.”

The musty and ancient rubrics of a prayer ritualised regime may be in need of an update – perhaps the atmosphere of an ‘old boys’ club needs some new life, but without completely destroying the remnant of, and respect for, the old.

Pericles,
As our quibble is so minor… I’ll split the difference

George wrote: Dear david f

You might or might not be right about “the continued existence or correctness of“ the Catholic Church; neither you nor I will live to see what it will evolve into. However, the part you quoted is not about this but about the local significance of the incident, and the limited powers of Bathersby to negotiate on behalf of the whole Catholic Church (whatever its size might become in the future).

Dear George,

I’m only 83. I may live to see the Catholic Church evolve. Twenty-five years ago the Soviet Union looked like an entity that had many years left to strut upon the stage of history. It now is dead as the dodo.

I responded to your meaning. I agree Bathersby has limited power to negotiate. I was pointing that the Catholic Church itself has its limits. To those directly involved in the conflict at St Marys the situation there has great meaning. To adherents of the Catholic Church the Catholic Church has great meaning. Like all human institutions it, too, shall pass. Catholicism will eventually suffer the fate of you, me and Manichaeism. I believe the monotheist trio of Judaism, Christianity and Islam will eventually disappear. Other religions or social forms meeting the needs most humans seem to have of community, ritual, meaning and belief will replace them.

The importance of an issue is a subjective matter determined by one’s involvement and one’s distance from the issue.

I feel at the moment both cosmic and infinitesimally small. Like Whitman I embody great contradictions.

relda,
>> Kennedy’s motivation is not to split and separate from RCism, but to challenge it<<
I can understand how one can challenge “RCism“: it is being done on a large scale all the time, often justifiably but often also by the straw man method. However, I do not understand how you can “split and separate” from it: you can do the latter only from an institution, in this case the Catholic Church. If Father Kennedy wants to challenge, i.e. disrupt, the Church as an institution from within, then he should not be surprised that the institution will defend itself by means available to it that could regrettably be as uncharitable towards him as those of the “challenger“ towards the institution. One might ask whether Christianity needs at all an institution - actually there are many of them as you know - but that is a different story.

However, I think I am just repeating myself. I am sorry I could not convince you about the importance - as symbolic as it is - of the concept of sacraments, without which it is indeed hard to understand what makes the Catholic Church tick. Perhaps like without understanding the concepts of linear operators on Hilbert spaces you cannot understand, not to mention critically assess, what quantum mechanics is all about.

So I shall just repeat that I value your many opinions expressed on this OLO, but that we have to agree to disagree on how we see the role of the Catholic Church as an institution, within the conglomerate of world-view orientations and denominations called Christianity. Please let us leave it at that.

Dear david f,

The Catholic Church has survived many “entitites” that are now “dead as the dodo” not only the Soviet Union. With all respect for your youth, I do not believe you will live to see it go (or not to go) the same way. What will happen in the future, i.e. how will the Church evolve - whether our generation (if we lived another century or so), would at all recognise it as such - are all questions of belief. You will understand that I am about the last one to deny you the right to believe in “afterlife”, be it personal like “going to heaven”, or impersonal like “history will prove me right”.

This discussion has exposed a basic ignorance of property law. The root or radical title to all property in the Commonwealth is vested in Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as representative of Almighty God, whether the Pope in Rome or Archbishop Bathersby understand that fact or not. That includes the building known as St Mary’s Church.

The importance of Christianity to our everyday lives is no longer taught in schools, and in far too few churches. In the eyes of a Christian, Almighty God owns everything, we are all created from dust and will return to it, but the word of Almighty God will last forever. The Christian Church is the fundamental grass roots community organization, that acted as a glue to keep society functioning. It is the glue that we adopted when we formed a Commonwealth in 1900, and the hymn God Save the Queen, is more than an anthem, it is a prayer. It is a prayer that we will be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the earth in full equality.

As the atheists have infiltrated government, they have proposed a regime where instead of Almighty God owning everything, the State does. The conflict between Father Kennedy and his superiors, is the same conflict as that between Jesus Christ and the Sanhedrin and Priestly government in Palestine under the Romans.

Before atheism became paramount, and lawyers became surrogate State Gods, as Judges and Magistrates, the conflict between Father Kennedy and his hierarchy over control of the property, would on his and his congregations claim of right to Christian justice, have been determined not by a Judge, but by a jury. As a Trust Property, the Supreme Court of Almighty God has jurisdiction over all land, and can divest the Church from the Archbishop and order it vested in the local congregation.

Whether or not it is held on trust by the Archbishop is a question of fact. In Queensland the Supreme Court Act 1995, gives Father Kennedy and his flock, the right to have that question of fact determined by 12 Christians sworn on the Holy Bible

Dear George,

Do you really believe any religion now existing will survive as long as humanity will?

The catholic church opposes anything that challenges their authority as far back as Gallileo and Copernicus.

Anything that threatens their easy life of pontificating and paedophilia cannot be tolerated.

Peter Kennedy teaches in a way that resonates with his parish, but he does not teach the party line. If he had no following he would be ignored, his very popularity is in deep contrast to the dry dogma spouted by most priests, and if left unchecked could usher in change. He must be stopped at all costs.

George,
I’m certain, if the current challenge to RCism is based on “straw-man” like principles, there is nothing this institution has to fear - it will continue to survive, if not, flourish in its present form. Time will tell, however - and I do also value your comments, opinions and ideas...

Christianity has produced (there’s that ‘product’ word again!) a plethora of institutions, all of which are religiously based - because it’s what we do. I don’t think there will ever be an absence of religion, only an altering of its form, and I think david f, even at 83 will live to see RCism further evolve, as he suggests. Perhaps this is because he draws on a ‘sense’ of the infinite, recognising the puny insignificance of an ego - bearing contradiction to the reality of being infinitesimal to space and time (our QM connection).

Our ‘importance’ is oh, so subjective. A type of Judaic ‘authority’ rests here where, ‘As long as you are taking yourself so seriously, you are feeding into your ego… and a desire to be spiritual is often also self-centered’ – this is also Buddhist in orientation. The mitzvah life is about not taking ourselves so seriously, “…because we are only here to serve others - both G-d and our fellow human beings.”

The Jewish resting on Shabbat, wrapping tefillin on your arm, putting up a mezuzah on your doorpost and honoring your parents bear a similar 'sacramental importance' as found within RCism – as with Judaism, it will evolve, but one is rooted in the other. Perhaps the minor off-shoot of Christianity fails to realise this - maybe we can leave it at that.

Dear david f,
>>Do you really believe any religion now existing will survive as long as humanity will?<<
The silly answer is "all of them", provided humanity manages to get itself extinct (through a nuclear WW) within a couple of decades.

Seriously:

Your question concerns three things, humanity, religion (as such, without specifying which variety), and "a religion" (like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc.).

It is indeed fascinating to speculate how humanity might evolve in thousands, or even million years, if "it" survives that long. Quotation marks because I believe that although the biological Darwin's tree will not further branch (creating some dead-end species of our descendants that will be by-passed by the mainstream) after having arrived at self-conscious humans a couple of million years ago, humanity will evolve beyond recognition driven more by "software" (thinking mind) than by the underlying “blind“ reproductive biology. Cyborgs, genetic engineering etc., developments that will need to be regulated - like the use of nuclear power - lest they lead to a global dead-end (degeneration).

Speculations for millions of years ahead are futile, but for instance I dare to predict that in a not so distant future the "sexual revolution" (in "technology" as well as human reaction to it) and its consequences will lead to not only artificial insemination but also to artificial wombs: prospective parents (maybe even of the same sex) depositing their genetic material at an institute and coming back in nine months‘ time to pick up their baby. What position religion (e.g. the Catholic Church) or any authority concerned with ethics would or should take is a different, very hard, question.

As for religion, there are many definitions. I like to see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all. (ctd)

(ctd) Speculations about how religion might evolve differ from similar speculations about science because in questions of religion the subject and object are inseparably connected, whereas traditionally science studies phenomena existing independent of the subject that observes them. I say traditionally, because, as you know in QM it is not that simple (Copenhagen interpretation) and the way out is only through non-trivial mathematics. Similarly the flow of time depending on the observer in Einstein‘s theory.

Therefore it is also much harder to speculate about where religion might lead us than on the future of science. With religion we do not even have the luxury of “mental experimentation“ (Einsteins experiment with the free falling elevator to demonstrate the equivalence of innertial and gravitational mass, visualising live dinosaurs that no human could have seen, etc.). As I like to say, “Man created (an image of) God to his own image” is just the other side of the maxim “God created man to His image”.

As to particular mainstream religions as they exist today, I believe they will leave traces of themselves in what will evolve into a higher form of religion. Because of the inseparability of subject and object in matters of religion that I mentioned above, I could only speculate while entrenched in my religion. So yes, I believe Christianity, will survive, probably in a form that we today would hardly recognise as such.

Apologies for this long answer to a short question.

relda,
I never said the Catholic Church would not evolve: everything evolves, grows. But if you pull at a plant you will not make it grow faster, you can only uproot it. Also your understanding of the sacraments of the Catholic Church is very different from mine, but then I am not a theologian. For me English is a much easier language than Chinese, but I recognise that for a native Chinese it is the other way around, and that in both languages you can express very primitive as well as very sophisticated thoughts. The same for different versions of Christianity. So indeed, let us leave it that

George,
Just to further clarify. My understanding of the Catholic sacraments is they emerged from a crystallization of Eygptian and other mid-eastern myth and allegory into a ritualistic based institution. The literalisation of these myths and symbols consequently meant a large part of an institution failed to evolve. Layered into this is to remember that Western culture is a mixture of Christian and pagan worldviews.

The ‘Word of God’ is based on the theology of the Western Church whose roots sprang from Rome, not Jerusalem. And the western Church has always used Greek rather than the original Hebrew – this further add to the sophistry. Christianity, at its most unsophisticated level, is to to be like Jesus, and live according to the gospel of Jesus. Liberating Christianity from a false image of the deity, in which God was only present in the world in its almost universal and pagan form, was an ‘intervention’ like a deus ex machine ( or literally, “God from the machine” i.e. the surprising or unexpected). We now live in a mixed belief society, rather than one dominated by institutional Christianity.

It is certainly absurd to believe that the mentality and knowledge (or rather, ignorance) of the people who lived two or three thousand years ago would set the guidelines for human beings of all time. It is also reasonable to suggest that if the human mind is itself the product of evolutionary processes, it cannot be trusted to reach definitive conclusions on the metaphysical or the theological.

Part One

But Relda, surely we do need some lessons as we need to find today's truth through our media.

Certainly the lack of interest in Middle East problems right now proves that possibly Murdoch has managed to get more than a few blatant lies across.

First with the one about Saddam's former powerful Sunni Shaiks given the OK from Bush and his Generals to pretty well get on the US payroll if they call in their anti-US Sunni insurgents.

The Surge was thus just a pack of lies, as proven lately by the Sunni Shaiks that if they don't become part of the new Iraqi government as promised they'll order their Sunni sons to go insurging once again.

Part Two

More from A World of Trouble by Patrick Tyler

Bushbred,
I’m not sure whether you’ve lost the thread or not. Your concerns about the Middle East, the media and its ‘truth’ certainly do apply to another topic, or even several.

‘Lessons’ in this thread certainly apply, as I stated earlier “…As with art, literature, music and poetry, libertry is a distinctive achievement of the spirit. The training, discipline and apprenticeship, demanded in its achievement, are often forgotten.” This principle must certainly shine through the current mid-east quagmire.

But briefly... Because Arab sheiks and princes shook hands with President Bush to buy American weapons certainly doesn't mean they are lined up behind Washington. For while Washington has been courting the Sunni Arabs, the Sunni Arabs have been courting Iran - an era of Iranian hegemony has arrived in the Middle East. The Shi'ites are seducing the Sunnis and uniting the sects through violence against Israel. They started this process in 2006, using Hezballah (Shi'ite proxy of Iran) in Lebanon and Hamas (Sunni, but sponsored by Iran) in Gaza.

I am intruding deliberately, Sellus, because I believe Obama is needing truth not deliberate misguided political shadiness for a somewhat dumb world public.

Here's more factual information -

Problems ahead for Obama

From A World of Trouble -by Patrick Tyler

American recklessness and missed chances in Middle East.

1. Promise of peaceful era when America replaced Britain in Middle East in 1950s.

2. Later the US would try to sort out the conflict between the Arab states and Israel

3. Not beyond the capacity of a sensible super-power, but all attempts by America to solve ME conflicts failed, some very miserably.

4. Though Henry Kissinger appeared resolute when he argued against Nixon letting Israel go militarily atomic, he appeared too much unsure of himself later concerning the attitude of the Soviets.

5. Though Tyler appears disgusted with characters like Cheney and Rumsfeld he saves his toughest words for Presidents, especially George W Bush.

6. Though he does show some favour for Eisenhower, he slams him for allowing the coup throwing out Mossadeq of Iran not long after WW2.

7. Tyler's catalogue of blame really begins with Lyndon Johnson for letting Israel get away with failing to return the territories it conquered during the Six-Day War.

But Tyler is hardest of all on Clinton, who seemed possibly too friendly and undecided, finally letting himself be manipulated by Netanyahu of Israel.

Incidently, Patrick Tyler works partly for the Washington Post, similar to Bob Woodward, Ron Susskind and David Ignatious.

Regards, BB, WA.

relda,
>>We now live in a mixed belief society<<
Yes, and a mixed interpretations - of e.g. Mt 16:18-19 or of the meaning of sacrament as "a visible sign of an invisible reality" (Augustine) - society.

>>rather than one dominated by institutional Christianity<<
Again yes, except that protecting one‘s identity (and this is what the whole controversy was about) is not domination.

>> It is also reasonable to suggest that if the human mind is itself the product of evolutionary processes, it cannot be trusted to reach definitive conclusions on the metaphysical or the theological.<<
Of course, I agree, however without restrictions to only “metaphysical or the theological“. You can reach “definitive conclusions“ only within a formal, conceptual - metaphysical, theological, mathematical, scientific etc - model, not about the reality it is supposed to model, although the claim is often made that you “know” reality through that model.

In case of scientific models your choice of a particular model is restricted not only by the cultural context but mainly by its adequacy (“truthfulness“) as measured through observation, experimentation and mathematics.

One’s choice of a metaphysical or theological model is more “arbitrary”, more up to the individual, although still subject to personal psychological, cultural, and social circumstances. Nevertheless, everybody should have the right to choose his/her own, say theological, model, whether or not it conforms with this or that Christian or other “institution”. And so should also religious institutions have the right to proclaim their own preference for this or that model of reality, and define the symbols or signs they wish to represent it with.

Relda, its hard to fathom what game you people are playing with rather romantic religous niceties mixed with a few nasties, but not really solving today's worrying Middle East problems?

But I do know what game we are playing, to try to philosophically understand today's Middle East and possibly find a way to share the blame by even admitting not only what colonial killers we were, but what neo-colonialistic bastards we still are, telling a wealth of lies about democracy but still hoping we can leave our troops there mostly because of the oil there.

Because sharing the blame is what the Sermon on the Mount's all about, putting oneself in the place of the enemy, and to take a good look what we look like from the other side.

Anyhow, Relda, reckon you still have good qualities, and apologise for giving the wrong name above some briefs I took from an article in the latest Guardian by Martin Woolcott based on a book almost completed by Patrick Tyler part-time journo for the Washington Post.

Article can be found back further where fool me could not remember your true monicker.

Regards, Bushbred, WA.

George,
I agree, formal procedure is important – scientific and mathematical discovery needs to be made within this context and discipline. The metaphysical and theological aren’t perhaps quite so measured – but the ‘fruits’ of their discoveries have always been the same.

Bushbred,
A naïve reading of the Gospels takes them not only literally, but fails also to detect the hyperbole found within their rhetoric. The ethos in the figure of Jesus is one of undoubted non-violence and there’s no mistaking the pacifism of pubescent Christianity – from which ‘Christ’ emerges.

Undoubtedly, all war is accompanied by evil and injustice and I believe ‘The Sermon on the Mount’ offers a true blue-print for peace. However, if you are to ‘swallow’ the Gospels at all , Bushbred, take them as a whole and acquire their balance, viz, “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you… Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The actions of individuals who are vengeful, excessively defensive, selfish, and self-justifying need repudiation - and Israel is certainly and by no means perfect in this regard.

A division between the secular and the religious rightly exists - the Church (i.e. the spiritual) has no right to appropriate and identify itself with the power of the state. This is not say it must stay out of politics - where it sees an abrogation of social justice (i.e. human rights) the Church must ‘inform’ the state. As with Kennedy and St. Mary’s, an external authority exists and has its rightful place – it should be challenged not merely usurped.

Must say, as far as Faith of the Fathers is concerned, Relda, true faith has been too much abused through history, I thus simply now believe in hope with a capital H, that compassion and commonsense is never far from one's mind.

Cheers, BB, WA.

Yes I will receive condemnation for stating the following but so Did Jesus when he told the Truth to the Pharisees.

The standard / orthodox catholic church and it's associated trinity formulation and praying ' through / via the literally dead Mary ' are at odds with the Bible.

i.e. 1. The trinity formulation is man made and ill conceived. (Gal. 3:20) KJV

2. There is but ONE mediator and it isn't Mary. (1 Tim. 2: 5) KJV

As George asked the question, I will try to answer it. The day the conscious mind began and the instinct barrier was broken, that new state of mind separated us from the animal world for ever and this took place the day we came down for the trees. That decision to do so, has shaped mankind to where it is today and this is where religion sporned and as each new generation unfolded, evolution adds one more degree to the human consciousness.
(A new age awakening)
There has been thousands of gods since that time and with-out a doubt, religion has had a massive impact, and this mechanism was indeed the key to our survival as our minds began to expand.

Now just for an example, the IQ of a chimpanzee is rated at the same as a four year old child, but at some point back in its past, it had the IQ of a three year old and so on, right back to where it was at ground zero and for us, that’s round 5 million years ago. So it’s fair to say they are following in our foot steps so to speak, but again, our branch is one of those unique triggers that we still don’t fully understand why as yet and there is no name for it. Mankind’s maturity begins at round forty and as above, the chimp hits it at the age of four, and still, the chimp sees no reason for the need for religion, but yet again, he hasn’t left the trees either. So at what stage does religion start in a species? Well as mans evolution progresses, the need for a security with in ones self, grew with all our new awakenings and curiosities and became more intense as time travelled on, so we started to join up the all dots and began questioning some of the many wonders and oddly enough the sky was the big focus with the stars and shooting stars and so on.

Continued

(Primitive man and the imagination)
And so the gods began! So in us all, we have religion constantly plucking at our inner strings and even I at times look to the skies when-ever a distressing or fearful event through loss of a loved one and so on.

(The fast train of evolvement)
Today some of mankind’s newest members are not feeling the pull like religion once had on some of us, so evolution is hard at work, and the changes are very clear to see.
It’s all in the genes and if one day man was to take out this mechanism the human state would revert back and just an empty man animal would remain. The need for god like I’ve said in the past will be with us for a long time to come. And now the big question is do we still need it? And the answer is yes. But without the misinterpretations of a man made book from primitive minds of no understanding of the text. The truth of our existence is not on this planet with an all mighty creator but with more of a big brother in our minds and once we start heading out to the stars we one day maybe gods to some other types of living creatures, but that another story.

EVO

EVO2,
Which question of mine are you “trying to answer”?

Your description of how humanity evolved is more or less the standard one, except that it is not clear on what “day the conscious mind began”. As far as I understand evolution, the transition from “animal” to “human” was continuous, gradual (ontogenetically mirrored in the ambiguities about at what “moment” an embryo becomes human). Not only religion, but the sense of, and striving for, beauty, truth, goodness - or for that matter general curiosity leading to mathematical understanding of the essence of physical reality (or religious understanding of the essence of a reality believed to exist beyond the physical) - evolved gradually in the process of “animals” becoming human. Not everything can be reduced to mere struggle for survival, individual or collective: “culture driven” evolution has been replacing its “nurture driven” stage.

Of course, there are/were naive versions of religion, like there are/were naive versions of the scientific understanding of reality and the role of mathematics therein. There are people who speak of “misinterpretations of a man made book from primitive minds of no understanding of the text“ referring to bible, who would not call Plato or Aristotle, Euclid or Pythagoras “primitive minds” although much of what these have written also needs to be re-inrepreted (but not dismissed) in light of what we have learned in the meantime.

“The truth of our existence is not on this planet”, neither is the truth about this planet in some small township in the outback. Nevertheless, you can sit in some God-forbiden place and contemplate about the fate of this planet, the same as you can sit on this planet and contemplate about the world, its meaning and purpose: the diminutiveness or remoteness of the place whence you conduct your contemplation is irrelevant. Einstein’s mind, “running” on a brain positioned on a negligibly small planet, embraced the whole universe, which, of course, might contain other living creatures that will embrace the same universe, or multiverse, in a similar or quite dissimilar manner. The same about great philosophers and general thinkers, religious or areligious.

EVO2,
Apologies. At a second reading of your text I realised you call “primitive minds” those who misinterpret the bible, not its authors. So please disregard my second-last paragraph.

George. The reason I don't involve my self, in this particular, know "it" all, event, is that you and others have no control over your destiny, and you need other,s to shape your world for you......;///. So how strong are you now george?

The balance, like I have said, and in all politics and views, the world must BE ONE! or we will fight too the end, and this is how I interpret the people, of a time gone past.

The truth is with-in logic george, and I know you know.

Its a game of catch-up, and you know it just so well.

All the best george, and may they all join the dots up, before time is up.

300 years! Don'T be on this planet!

EVO