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.