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