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”.